[House Hearing, 105 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998 _______________________________________________________________________ HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ________ SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE JAMES T. WALSH, New York, Chairman C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida JOSE E. SERRANO, New York RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California VIC FAZIO, California ZACH WAMP, Tennessee MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio TOM LATHAM, Iowa NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. Edward E. Lombard, Staff Assistant ________ PART 2 FISCAL YEAR 1998 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATION REQUESTS ________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 39-099 O WASHINGTON : 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia VIC FAZIO, California TOM DeLAY, Texas W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina JIM KOLBE, Arizona STENY H. HOYER, Maryland RON PACKARD, California ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JAMES T. WALSH, New York DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NANCY PELOSI, California DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania HENRY BONILLA, Texas ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan NITA M. LOWEY, New York DAN MILLER, Florida JOSE E. SERRANO, New York JAY DICKEY, Arkansas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia MIKE PARKER, Mississippi JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ED PASTOR, Arizona ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington CHET EDWARDS, Texas MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California TODD TIAHRT, Kansas ZACH WAMP, Tennessee TOM LATHAM, Iowa ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 ---------- Tuesday, February 4, 1997. Mr. Walsh. The committee will come to order. We begin by welcoming everyone to our hearing today. My name is Jim Walsh. I am the new Chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations. Ed Lombard is the clerk for the subcommittee and resident institutional memory. And we have a number of new Members who I will introduce in just a second. What I would like to do is just make a couple of personal comments, if I may, and that is that I am really excited about this opportunity to chair this very, very important subcommittee. I think all of us who are here have a sense of the history of the place and the institution that we belong to, and I think one of the benefits of being on this subcommittee is that we will learn a great deal more about this institution and the legislative branch. There are literally thousands of people who work for the Congress, the House, the Senate, the Library, the other departments. I think we need to let them know that we care about them and that the decisions that we make in this subcommittee will affect them. And we hope it will affect them in a positive way. We want to improve their quality of life, where they work, the conditions they work in. What they do is very, very important to all of us and the ability--our ability to do our jobs. We are entrusted with a great deal, the bill we produce, and for me it is very exciting to have oversight for the House, the Senate, especially the House, and the Library of Congress and all the other agencies we have in our jurisdiction. The Library of Congress is the repository of our Nation's history. It has it all, from the Mayflower, to Yorktown, to Kitty Hawk, Pearl Harbor, the Apollo project, right up until today, and they will be recording the history of whatever we accomplish or fail to accomplish in the 105th Congress. So it is really a neat subcommittee assignment, and I hope everybody enjoys it as much as I do, or more, perhaps. Before we begin, I would like to welcome the Members of the subcommittee. We have a number of changes, a number of new individuals. And as I said, my name is Jim Walsh, I am from New York State, New York's 25th Congressional District, Syracuse is my home. I am the Chair. We also have on our side, Bill Young of Florida, the returning Vice Chairman; Duke Cunningham of California. Good to have you with us, Duke. Zach Wamp of Tennessee. Zach is just arriving. Good to have you with us, Zach. And Tom Latham of Iowa. So we go pretty much from East to West. Back East we have our Ranking Member and my good friend, Jose Serrano of New York, the other part of New York that I am not quite as familiar as I am with Syracuse, and he can tell you more about that, and I am sure he will. He returns as a Ranking Minority Member, and he is joined by Vic Fazio the former Chair, and Marcy Kaptur of Ohio. We also have the Chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, Bob Livingston of Louisiana, and Dave Obey Ranking Minority Member of the full committee, they are also Members of this subcommittee. jurisdiction of the subcommittee I will insert in the record the current jurisdiction of the subcommittee which has been established under the rules of the Committee on Appropriations. [The information follows:] Subcommittee on Legislative House of Representatives. Joint Items. Architect of the Capital (Except Senate Items). Botanic Garden. Congressional Budget Office. General Accounting Office. Government Printing Office. John C. Stennis Center. Library of Congress, including: Congressional Research Service. Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel. Copyright Office. National Film Preservation Board. United States Capitol Preservation Commission. Mr. Walsh. Several agencies included as legislative branch agencies in the President's budget are not under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. For example, the U.S. Tax Court is one agency classified as a legislative agency in the President's budget, but that agency is actually funded in the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill. Likewise, the Helsinki Commission, the Prospective Payment Commission and several other agencies are not within our bill. The President's budget has not yet been delivered to the Congress. It will be soon. However, for the past several weeks, the legislative agencies and all Federal agencies have been submitting their budget material to the Office of Management and Budget in preparation for the expected delivery to the Congress on Thursday of this week, the President's budget. Under statute, the legislative budget must be submitted to the Congress in the President's budget without change by OMB. During the process of preparing the Federal budget for 1998, we have asked those agencies under our jurisdiction to provide copies to the subcommittee of the material they are sending to OMB. We did that in order to get an early start on our hearings. This has been the customary practice over the years, and both Majority and Minority have always agreed to this procedure. members' informational materials The staff has compiled the customary budget material for the use of the Members of the subcommittee. The draft Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 1998, Subcommittee Print, contains the bill language and funding requests that will be included in the President's budget document, primarily the budget appendix. The subcommittee print is labeled as a draft, since the formal budget submission has not arrived. We believe it will not change in any significant extent, if at all. The subcommittee print also contains a great deal of historical information that the Members may find useful. The Legislative Branch Appropriations For 1998, Hearings, Part 1, contains the budget justifications that the agencies have prepared in explanation of their budget requests. Part 1 contains what the agencies have provided to the committee by way of explaining their budget requests. Both of these documents have been provided to each Member. Part 1 will be made available as a public document when the hearings are completed. The budget that we are going to consider in this subcommittee totals $1.9 billion, just under that amount. That figure does not include the operating budget of the Senate. That budget will be taken up by our counterpart subcommittee in the other body. The budget for Congressional Operations is $1.1 billion. That encompasses the House of Representatives operating budget, the Joint Committees and the various support agencies such as the Capitol Police, the Architect, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Compliance, Congressional Research Service, and congressional printing at the Government Printing Office. The balance of the funds requested, $710 million, approximately, is for other agencies in the legislative budget, primarily the Library of Congress, Superintendent of Documents, Federal Depository Library Program, General Accounting Office, Botanical Garden, and the care of the Library grounds by the Architect. subcommittee's role As I mentioned earlier, these budgets have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget by each of the legislative branch agencies separately. By law, OMB will include these budget requests in the President's budget without change. Since OMB cannot and should not make policy or dollar-level changes in these legislative budgets, this committee will perform a double function. We will scrub these budgets much the same as OMB does the executive agency budgets, and, when the 602(b) budget allocations are given to the subcommittee, we will markup the legislative branch appropriations bill to conform with our overall budget targets. So what we see and hear today are requests of the agencies to OMB, they are submitted as part of the President's budget, but they have not been scrubbed and we will have to perform that duty. As we proceed through the process, we will consult with the authorizing committees, House Oversight, Budget, Government Reform, perhaps Judiciary, if necessary. So the bill we bring to the Floor will undergo several adjustments, and I fully expect reductions will be made along the way. budget evaluation Over the past 2 years in the 104th Congress, legislative spending has been reduced by $225 million below the level of operations in fiscal year 1995. That was not an easy task because these programs are important and we must have an effective legislative branch to carry out the checks and balances required by our Constitution. So, we must fund these programs, the staff and resources necessary to conduct the legislative business of the House and Senate, the maintenance of our physical plant, the research staff, and the auditors. Our basic responsibility in this appropriations bill is to make sure we provide the resources necessary to carry out those duties. But we must also be cost-effective. We must isolate what is necessary from what is merely desirable or even of marginal value in our programs. The Congress has shown that it can reduce its own budget and not sacrifice fundamental capabilities. Resources and staff have been reduced, some programs were eliminated where possible, and the private sector has filled the gaps, to some extent, when feasible. Since I am new to the subcommittee, as are several of my colleagues, I will reserve judgment on prospective increases and decreases. We will proceed through these hearings and examine the budget in detail, and the subcommittee will keep an open mind on the level of funding necessary for fiscal year 1998. So the requests will be treated just that way. They are just requests, and the subcommittee will listen carefully and evaluate each agency's budget. I know each Member of the subcommittee will join in that effort. Lastly, before I turn it over to Mr. Serrano for an opening statement, I would just like to say for those of you who do not know this, this is the Brumidi Room, the first room of the Capitol that was painted about 1860. The gentleman received $3,700 for this job. I can't imagine what it would be in today's dollars, but there is a sense of history in the room, and I hope that this committee continues not necessarily to make history, but at least to be recorded in history as having done the right job. Mr. Serrano. MR. SERRANO'S STATEMENT Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me congratulate you on your Chairmanship of this committee. Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Mr. Serrano. We will have the House Historian look to see the last time that two Members of the New York delegation headed a committee on both sides at the same time. Let me also just clarify that when I returned to the Appropriations Committee last year, after a little vacation I was asked to take after the 1994 elections, the work had been done by the staff and by the Members. And so this hearing is really my first time as I join you in doing this kind of work. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that this committee, and it is no secret to a lot of the people that are here, at times takes some bad jokes from Members. Supposedly this is a hard duty that you do before you go on to great splendor as Speaker or something else in the House. I look at it as you do, in a totally different fashion. I think that as this House moves into the new age of technology, which it has embarked on already, as we look at the work the Sergeant at Arms does in a totally different world these days about security and safety, and so on, as we look at the Library of Congress that, as you said, holds our history--of course, you said Mayflower, I remind you St. Augustine, Florida, was the first settlement--that there is so much work that can be done and done well. And so, I join you, Mr. Chairman, in being excited about this work. I don't take it lightly. I think that we have a grave responsibility to keep up the work of this institution, and the affected agencies. And I take, as you know, very seriously my service in this House, and the history of this House. And any way that I can be helpful to making this a better place, I think that that would be input that I can be proud of. This committee also requires, perhaps as much or more than any other committee, I believe, a bipartisan approach. And I pledge to you my desire to do that. In fact, if we can work as closely here as we do on the basketball court, I think we will have a wonderful time. And here, too, you will score more than I will. Mr. Walsh. But I will pass to you, I promise. CREDIT TO PREVIOUS SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN Mr. Serrano. But last, Mr. Chairman, I would like, although he is not here, just to show my gratitude to Mr. Fazio, who, for so many years, both as Ranking Member and as Chairman, understood this committee's business well. Understood and respected this House, as he continues to. And he will be a valuable Member to assist me, assist all of us in the work that we have to do. With that in mind, let us proceed, and you have me as an ally. Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much. And I really look forward to working with you, you are a good friend. And I am sure we won't agree all the time, but I pledge that you will have my bipartisan support also, and I agree that is really integral to the success of this committee. And since we are really the first subcommittee to get started, maybe we can set the tone for everybody else. Anyone else have an opening statement they would like to make? MR. LATHAM'S STATEMENT Mr. Latham. I will submit one for the record. Mr. Walsh. Happy to submit it. [The information follows:] [Page 6--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Cunningham. I associate myself with Mr. Serrano's and your comments. Mr. Walsh. Okay. Mr. Cunningham. Except he fouls on the basketball court. Mr. Walsh. You are allowed five. ---------- Tuesday, February 4, 1997. U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITNESSES JEFF TRANDAHL, ACTING CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE HOUSE DAVID DENNIS, ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF FINANCE KENNETH J. MILLER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, HOUSE INFORMATION RESOURCES ROBIN H. CARLE, CLERK, OFFICE OF THE CLERK B. JENAY PATCH, SPECIAL ASSISTANT HON. WILSON S. LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS, OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS JOHN W. LAINHART IV, INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BOB FREY, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL JOHN R. MILLER, OFFICE OF THE LAW REVISION COUNSEL DAVID E. MEADE, OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL DR. JOHN F. EISOLD, OFFICE OF THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN Mr. Walsh. All right. We will now take up the budget request of the House of Representatives and several joint items. The Acting Chief Administrative Officer, assisted by the Office of Finance, submits the House budget each year to the Office of Management and Budget. That material is then included in the President's budget. We will go right to Jeff Trandahl, who is the Acting Chief Administrative Officer for the House of Representatives. Mr. Trandahl's Opening Statement Mr. Trandahl. Chairman Walsh, Mr. Serrano, other Members of the subcommittee, I am Jeff Trandahl and I am the Acting Administrative Officer or CAO of the House. As established at the beginning of the 104th Congress, the CAO is the Chief Budget official of the U.S. House of Representatives and is responsible for the presentation of the House budget before your subcommittee. In essence, I will be walking you through the papers before you today. Later in these hearings I will further outline my daily responsibilities in the fiscal year budget request related to the Offices of the CAO. In addition, I stand ready to assist the subcommittee in any way as you work to compile the fiscal year 1998 legislative branch appropriations bill. I realize the need for you to have complete, accurate information, and we have hopefully anticipated and gathered much of the information for you already. fiscal year 1998 estimates The fiscal year 1998 estimates that were submitted earlier to the OMB are reflected in the budget to be transmitted to the Congress by the President and are detailed in your subcommittee print. This statement and subcommittee print may be used jointly to obtain a complete picture of the budget. At the beginning of each budget item you will find a reference to the related page on the subcommittee print where further detail is provided. The fiscal year 1998 request for the House totals $752,383,000. This is an increase of $68,552,000 over the fiscal year 1997 amount and was based on the statutory entitlements, full funding authorizations, actual spending history, and consultation with the administrative offices. The following page illustrates the itemization of the actual fiscal year 1996 expenditures through October 31, 1996, appropriated funds for fiscal year 1997, and requested fiscal year 1998 funds, and I would ask that the following table on page 3 be submitted for the record. Mr. Walsh. Without objection. [The information follows:] [Page 11--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] house budgets and ftes Mr. Walsh. I have questions for the record to insert at this point. Question. The House has reduced its budgets and FTE employment significantly. Give the Committee a sense of those reductions since the beginning of the 104th Congress. Response. At the beginning of the 104th Congress the Committees were reduced by one-third and further reductions were made to administrative support offices through privatization efforts. The following comparative table shows each fiscal year appropriation since fiscal 1995 and estimated outlays. The impact of these factors is presented in the following chart. APPROPRIATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Actual/ Percent Fiscal year Budget Estimated used ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1995........................ $728,468,000 $667,022,000 91.57 1996........................ 670,561,000 658,166,000 98.15 1997........................ 683,831,000 664,919,000 97.23 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From an FTE perspective, there have been significant related reductions. The first comparative table below shows the relationship between funded FTEs and actual usage for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 with estimated usage for fiscal year 1997. The fiscal year 1997 estimate is based on actual first quarter usage plus estimated usage for the remaining nine months at the same level as the December 1996 activity. FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Actual/ Percent Fiscal year Budget Estimated used ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1995................................... 10,730 9,844 91.74 1996................................... 9,897 9,440 95.38 1997................................... 9,876 9,233 93.49 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The following FTE table compares the actual/estimated usage by major category since fiscal year 1995 which comprised the majority of the first session of the 104th Congress. The ``others'' category consists of House Leadership and Administrative Support offices. FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal years -------------------------------- 1995 1996 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Members................................ 7,186 7,103 6,944 Committees............................. 1,197 1,136 1,113 Others................................. 1,461 1,201 1,176 -------------------------------- Total............................ 9,844 9,440 9,233 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Question. For the record, prepare a five year table which shows the recent history of House funding and FTE levels. Response. The information follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year Funding FTE ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1993.......................... $699,109,000 n/a 1994.......................... 686,318,000 10,877 1995.......................... 728,468,000 9,844 1996.......................... 670,561,000 9,440 1997.......................... 683,831,000 9,876 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The House began monitoring FTEs in Fiscal Year 1994. Therefore, a four year summary of FTEs is provided. The original FY 1996 enacted appropriation of $671,561,000 was reduced by $1 million. The FY 1996 appropriation language under the ``Office of Compliance'' authorized a transfer of $500,000 from the ``House of Representatives'' account. The FY 1997 ``Omnibus Appropriations'' act authorized a rescission of $500,000. house leadership offices Mr. Trandahl. Fiscal year 1998 House Leadership Offices. For salaries and expenses of the House Leadership offices, the request is $11,916,000. This represents an increase of $324,000 over the amount enacted in fiscal year 1997. And at this time, I would ask that the remainder of pages 4 through 16 be submitted for the record. Mr. Walsh. Without objection. [The information follows:] [Pages 14 - 26--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] members' representational allowances Mr. Trandahl. Members' Representational Allowances. For Members' Representational Allowances, MRA, including Members' clerk hire, official rxpenses and official mail, $405,450,000 is requested. This request is $42,137,000 greater than the amount enacted for fiscal year 1997. I would request that we submit the balance of pages 17 and 18 for the record. Mr. Walsh. Without objection. [The information follows:] [Pages 28 - 29--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. I have a question for the record to insert at this point. Question. Funding for Members' allowances is appropriated in one appropriation line item. For Fiscal Year 1997, how much are the Members authorized to spend, as opposed to the amount we actually appropriate? Explain that in terms of each allowance component (i.e. clerk hire, official expenses and mail). Response. Each Member has an overall consolidated allowance established by the Committee on House Oversight. The numbers in the following table are estimates and do not represent specific amounts appropriated for the various component items. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1997 Component ---------------------------------------------------- Authorized Appropriated Variance ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clerk hire................................................. $264,191,400 $253,683,000 ($10,508,400) Official expenses.......................................... 85,838,096 88,933,000 3,094,904 Official mail.............................................. 49,275,887 20,697,000 (28,578,887) ---------------------------------------------------- Total................................................ 399,305,383 363,313,000 (35,992,383) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The FY 1997 authorization is based upon the prorated Calendar Year 1996 and 1997 authorizations as established by the Committee on House Oversight. The Clerk Hire component contains the 2.3% January 1, 1997, cost of living adjustment. However, the individual and aggregate 1997 authorization has yet to be complete. Due to re-districting in several states, the U.S. Postal Service is compiling the new postal delivery sites which are contained in the individual Members' Representational Allowance. standing committees, special and select Mr. Trandahl. Standing Committees, Special and Select. For salaries and expenses of Standing Committees, Special and Select, authorized by House resolutions, $90,310,000 is requested. This request is $10,088,000 greater than the amount provided in fiscal year 1997. I would ask that the balance of pages 19 and 20 be submitted for the record. [Clerk's note.--The House Finance Office has supplied the following information:] The original second session funding of $79,416,362 for Committees was adjusted in the second session of the 104th Congress as follows: Ethics Committee authorization was increased by $580,000 in H. Res. 377, dated March 7, 1996. The Committee on International Relations was increased by an additional $995,000 in H. Res. 417, dated May 8, 1996. On June 19, 1996 the Intelligence Committee transferred $1,500 out of the funding resolution in to the franked mail allocation upon the approval of House Oversight. On October 10, 1996, the Committee on Small Business transferred $1,000 out of the funding resolution in to the franked mail allocation upon the approval of House Oversight. On October 21, 1996, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct transferred $1,000 out of the funding resolution in to the franked mail allocation, upon the approval of House Oversight. This final adjustment brought the second session authorization to $80,987,862. [The information follows:] [Pages 31 - 32--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] committee on appropriations Mr. Trandahl. Committee on Appropriations. For salaries and expenses for the Committee on Appropriations, including studies and examinations of executive agencies and temporary personal services for the Committee, $18,276,000. I would ask that the table on pages 21 be submitted for the record. [The information follows:] [Page 34--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] salaries, officers and employees Mr. Trandahl. Salaries, Officers and Employees. For salaries and expenses of the officers and employees as authorized by law, $91,770,000, included in this amount is $58,706,000 for personnel and $33,064,000 for nonpersonnel items. I would ask that we insert the tables on pages 22 and 23 for the record. Mr. Walsh. Without objection. [The information follows:] [Pages 36 - 37--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] office of the clerk Mr. Trandahl. And at this time, I would ask the Committee to call the Clerk to the table. For salaries and expenses of the Offices of the Clerk, $14,715,000 is requested. Included in this request is $11,814,000 for personnel and $2,901,000 for nonpersonnel- related expenses. At this time I will introduce the Honorable Robin H. Carle, Clerk of the House, who is here to testify on behalf of her fiscal year 1998 budget request. And following her testimony I would ask that we insert the table on page 24 to follow her testimony. Mr. Walsh. Robin, welcome. We have as our witness Robin Carle, the Clerk of the House, and we have your statement. If you would like to summarize. Ms. Carle. Chairman Walsh, Mr. Serrano, and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear here to discuss the operations of the Offices of the Clerk and to outline my fiscal year 1998 budget submission. Serving as Clerk of the House, I am responsible for the most traditional of the House's legislative responsibilities and functions. Our offices are structured to provide seamless support for House legislative operations. The 104th Congress, therefore, provided a historical work load high for us. During the second session of the House, the House spent 122 days and almost 920 hours in session; passing 529 measures; enacting 249 bills into law; and having a total of 455 recorded votes. The Congressional Record contained 12,304 pages of House proceedings with 1,951 pages of remarks. From a fiscal year 1995 appropriation of $15,270,000 and 284 FTEs, by fiscal year 1997 we were able to hold overall funding to $15,074,000 and overall FTEs to 286, despite the creation of an additional office under the Clerk, the Office of House Employment Counsel. While the Offices of the Clerk have been given additional responsibilities throughout the 104th Congress, it has been our intention to truly do more with less. To summarize the submission before the subcommittee today, I am requesting for fiscal year 1998 a budget of $14,715,000, a net reduction of 2.38 percent compared with fiscal year 1997. In addition, I am requesting that my FTE authorization be reduced to 264 from its current total of 286. With my testimony, I am submitting a table identifying estimated office budget totals, personnel and nonpersonnel expenses. I would be pleased to submit any additional materials needed by the Subcommittee. document management system In fiscal year 1998, I am also requesting that the Subcommittee create a separate and new account of $1.5 million to support the development of a document management system, a project intended to automate document preparation. Using PC- based initiation, documents will be available to print on demand and/or for transmission to GPO for printing and further distribution. As part of the report accompanying the fiscal year 1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, the Clerk of the House was tasked to pursue various electronic efforts internal to the House and other joint legislative operations between the House, Senate, and related legislative agencies. This focus led to a report titled, ``Proposed Document Management System and Electronic Configurations Within the Office of the Clerk.'' We are going to try and rename it. This report, forwarded to this Subcommittee and the Committee on House Oversight, advocated the creation of a document management system that would allow for the comprehensive management of the document creation and production process and facilitation of electronic distribution. I am requesting a separate account to clearly disclose the costs of this effort and to ensure sound management; that it will be a long-term and costly but most necessary effort was predicted in a House Oversight Committee working group report. Also, as requested in last year's report, the Secretary of the Senate and I established a working group to study SGML, standard general market language, as a standard for the exchange of legislative information among legislative branch agencies. Working with an outside expert, the group surveyed all legislative branch agencies on their current activities. It is clear that it is in the best interest of the Congress to move to this standard and to form a group to establish and coordinate its development between all the affected agencies. The Secretary and I will provide a report to the House Oversight Committee and to the Senate committee, detailing what we have learned and making recommendations for the next steps. We are in agreement that a common standard must be established to easily facilitate the transfer of documents between the House and the Senate as well as share documents and information between all legislative branch agencies. A high priority for my office during the last Congress was to build a platform to electronically transmit more of the daily proceedings of the Congressional Record to the GPO. With the commencement of the 105th Congress, we began to transfer the electronic files from the Reporters' Office on a nightly basis. I am closely monitoring the progress we are making to ensure that we reach a level where we transmit everything that we have available. As the year progresses, I intend to ask Members who submit speeches, first for the extension of remarks and later for the debate portion of the record, to provide us with an electronic version along with the paper versions. Both will be submitted to GPO to eliminate any unnecessary rekeying of information. Last year, the Public Printer, speaking to ABC news, estimated this program will save $1 million a year. I am making every effort to ensure that the House realizes these savings and they can be reflected in future budgets. legislative resource center Another separate, yet equally important, effort to the internal operations of the House is the soon-to-be open Legislative Resource Center. This new center located below the rotunda of the Cannon Building is a facility created to assist congressional offices with the retrieval of legislative information as well as to provide easy access by the public to the legislative procedures of the people's House. With the combination of responsibilities of several previously separate offices into the Legislative Resource Center, the House Library, the House Historian, the House Document Room and the Office of Records and Registration, our ability to meet the House needs has and will continue to greatly improve. enhancement to voting system A primary goal during the last calendar year was to find a suitable replacement for the Members' voting cards, and we replaced all voting stations on the House Floor. The cards and the voting stations were originally part of the voting machine and had been in use since 1973, the 93rd Congress. As a result of these changes, the system's response time has improved and we will experience fewer failures and repairs in the voting stations as well as providing Members with a more durable voting card. I hope this has provided a brief review of some of the more significant undertakings within our offices. Your interest, support and guidance does much to ensure our success. For that, I thank you. If the committee has any questions, I am ready to answer them. Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much for your testimony. [The information follows:] [Pages 41 - 57--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] questions on the proposed document management system Mr. Walsh. The record should note that Ms. Carle is not only the first woman Clerk of the House, but the first female officer of the House of Representatives. I think it is a remarkable accomplishment and you are obviously a pioneer and we are very proud of that fact, and we are glad to have you with us today. Ms. Carle. The first but I am sure not the last. Mr. Walsh. Not the last. We have only just begun. Just one question that I had, and we talked about this a little bit when you came in earlier. One of the common-heard complaints around here is that when we get to crunch time, and especially around the time when conference reports are being put together, we are voting on bills that we have not seen because there just isn't time to get them printed. This process that you set up for electronic transmission to the Government Printing Office, do you anticipate that that is going to help to resolve that problem? Ms. Carle. Absolutely. The idea would be that when it is filed, the Committee reports are filed on the Floor, there will be an electronic version that is filed with the Clerk. And then we will be able to produce for Floor use a smaller amount at the same time GPO is printing for a larger audience. So, yes, it will be available for you. And in addition, that will apply also to Committee reports, committee rules, legislation reported out of committees. All of that. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Serrano. Mr. Serrano. Briefly, Ms. Carle, in your testimony, you spoke about asking us as time goes on during this year to submit to you our written comments on disk. This would be for all comments that we make on the Floor? Prepared statements? Ms. Carle. Yes, we are going to start--it is like--I want to be sure it works. So we are not asking for everything at once. We are going to be sure in increments we can do it well. And we are going to start with remarks and work from there. Mr. Serrano. I realize that most of these things have a dollar-saving view to them, and I certainly support that, but I am also interested in the dissemination of information so at what point do you see us being able, for instance, to speak on the Floor, to submit statements and not only be covered by C- SPAN live, by networks live, but to have that information available on-line? I mean, it happens in other places where the President may be delivering a speech and people are reading it at the same time that he is doing it. Ms. Carle. Some things--some of this will necessitate rules changes and decisions by membership about how they want things available and when they want things available. But the whole idea is that within the quite short timeline of this 4-year plan that we have for implementing the document management system that all of that information would be capable of being available in a fairly immediate fashion, and then the decisions would be up to the membership as to what rules changes they would or would not want to effect deciding what official documents are available when. Mr. Serrano. Just one last question on that. Do you foresee that that would be something you initiate, to get that on-line? Would it mean that another department would have to put it on? The minute that I give you a disk, assuming that we were at that point, does it take off from there or do you see a system by which it would have to be cleared by someone else before it goes on-line? Assuming that, once the rules are changed, I give you a disk, that is obviously what I want to say, and I don't want it altered by anyone, would the possibility exist for it to go on-line? Ms. Carle. Or to be pointed to. A lot of the work that we are doing in the committees right now would be to have those records, the plan would be that their web site would be able to point to documents that are the Clerk's responsibility to maintain as official records. And so rather than the committee or a Member rekeying that information or massaging it into some other form, they would be able to point to that in the Clerk's organization, and as time goes on that would become more and more immediate. This last Congress we tested a lot of these systems to be sure that we could technically do it. And now we are starting to implement it in this Congress. Mr. Serrano. You know, I stopped counting at seven the times that my voting card fell apart this past session. I really did. I was embarrassed. Ms. Carle. We didn't like to see you coming. Mr. Serrano. This one is guaranteed foolproof and will not fall apart? Ms. Carle. Well, we all---- Mr. Serrano. I understand that it has a computer chip which will follow me wherever I go? Ms. Carle. That is right. No, no, the idea is that these are not laminated cards. This is the next generation of cards, and our hope is that they will be a more durable card for the Members. Mr. Walsh. I would like to recognize Mr. Fazio, the formerly both Chairman and Ranking Member of the subcommittee. Welcome. Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to wish you all the best in your role. I know how important it is to the institution, and I appreciate the fact that you have taken it on with your colleague from New York, Mr. Serrano, but that makes it even more important that Californians like Mr. Cunningham and I show up to get ours. We have a lot of new blood on the Committee and that is always helpful. I appreciate what I gather were some kind comments made before I got here. I do hope to help as much as I can, and working with all of you, and our good friend, the clerk of the committee, Mr. Lombard, because I think it is important that on a bipartisan basis we make the institution work well. And that has always been what we try to do here. And I want to say to Robin, I particularly appreciate the job she has done. I think most members of my caucus agree that you have attempted to be fair and certainly evenhanded in the way you have tried to run the office. And I think we have made some real progress. I am particularly interested in the document management system. As you remember, when I served on the Oversight Committee we had some concerns about it. What did you learn from that oversight process, the concerns that were expressed to you at that time? Ms. Carle. Well, I think that this has to be a comprehensive plan. It is going to be an extremely costly undertaking. Not only financially but in terms of staff support and Member participation. And so we want to move along smartly, but we want to be sure that we do things that don't break the seamless operation of the legislative process. Mr. Fazio. Hence, the more deliberate process that you are undertaking. Ms. Carle. Right, and parallel tracks on testing. Mr. Fazio. So that we don't have any reduction in the current system's service. Ms. Carle. Right. I think I got that message pretty well. legislative information retrieval system Mr. Fazio. I thought you may have. I wondered if you worked at all with the legislative information system initiative that CRS has? Ms. Carle. Actually, with his other hat on---- Mr. Trandahl. Actually, I participated as the Assistant to the Clerk of the House in my old role, and at a distance now as the acting CAO. We continue to meet. We have a working group that gets together. It is both a joint group of the Library, the Senate, as well as the House dealing with the SGML standards. But there is a lot of discussion about legislative information system. Primarily, a lot of that interest or the interaction between the House and the Library is actually at the HIR front in terms of providing information for the Members' offices. As you know, the Clerk and the Library---- Mr. Fazio. Do you see at some point a system equally accessible not only to Members but to staff and people who come through the CRS or maybe people in the general public? Are we all talking about access on the same system? And in what real- time kind of environment? Mr. Trandahl. There are two types of layers or two types of services right now that LIS is looking at. One is---- Mr. Walsh. Jeff, could I interrupt for a second? For the uninitiated, you are going to have to drop the initials and go with the full, boring titles for a while. Mr. Trandahl. Oh, I am sorry. I am sorry. Yes, computer code. For the legislative information system that the Library of Congress will be testifying on in front of you, I believe it is actually engineered as being a dual system. One is defined as Intranet, which is basically Hill-clientele-only features, and then an Internet, which the public as well as the Hill can access those areas. And we have the ability within the technologies to create these different layers of service groups. There is discussion right now trying to define if there should be separate service groups or whether there should be just one threshold for the public and Congress. The reason there is a discussion about creating just a Hill environment within that larger environment would stem from the fact that there are draft documents and other types of information which are specific to our legislative process that aren't necessarily a public document. Mr. Fazio. Work in progress before an amendment is submitted, for example, formally which would perhaps trigger the second level of public access. I think this is an important issue for everybody to focus on, and probably this committee, among others, because we don't want to rightfully be accused of withholding information. On the other hand, there is a lot of work that is done before we are actually ready to go with amendments or legislation in a form that must be available to the public. Far more available than would set you back historically. I am sure there will be interest, especially among special interests who are in the general public, to have most draft documents available. To debate, we need the whole. Ms. Carle. And within the Clerk's operations, we are doing our internal document management system. That is a clear line between official documents and those documents that are works in progress. Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. Are there any other questions of the Clerk? [Questions of Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] Question. Last year, during appropriations hearings, you spoke about efforts in the Office of the Clerk to make House hearings, reports and documents available electronically. As you know, one of the needs is to have electronic standards for creating uniform legislative documents. What progress has been made since last year? Response. During the past year, we developed a conceptual design document outlining a Document Management System which would make documents available electronically as well as available for print. The plan was submitted for approval to the Committee on House Oversight. The Committee approved the conceptual plan and directed the Clerk to proceed. The first and primary requirement is to establish standards with the Senate for creating uniform documents which can easily be exchanged between the two bodies and other legislative branch agencies. The Secretary of the Senate and I established a task force to do this. SGML was determined to be the standard to follow. All legislative branch agencies were surveyed regarding their activities and SGML programs and the information was reviewed by an outside consultant jointly hired by the Secretary and me. The consultant's report was received last week, endorsing SGML but noting that each agency had been working independently of each other with no coordination. Several next steps were suggested including collecting and coordinating all of the work done to date by each agency. A full report to both the Senate Rules Committee and the Committee on House Oversight is currently being drafted and will be submitted by the Secretary and me to our respective oversight committees within the next two to three weeks. Question. It should be possible for Members and staff to create documents and pass them electronically to other offices. House staff should be able to use familiar word processing programs without having to perform complex coding required by computer programs that drive the printing process. Will the standards being developed reach this goal? Response. I agree that Members and staff should be able to use familiar word processing packages to create and edit documents. This is highlighted in the conceptual design document for the Document Management System. No standards will be developed which do not meet this primary requirements. Presently this is not the case for documents created for printing. House Members and staff do not have the software or training to use the typesetting software supplied by our current printer. Nor is it based on newer windows based software. Question. Is it the goal for the Clerk's office to receive electronic copy created on a Committee word processor, convert it into a file that drives the printing process, provide a copy to a Member or committee for further editing, and receive back the edited electronic copy for printing? Outline an ideal process for the future of House printing needs. Response. The answer is yes. Users should be able to type documents using prepared quick tasks, coaches, templates and macros from within off-the-shelf word processing packages commonly used in Congressional offices. This conversion process must work both ways, allowing documents stored in the final format used for printing to be converted back to WordPerfect or to Microsoft Word. The first step is to establish an SGML based system and SGML document type definitions (DTDs) for final electronic storage of official House documents. SGML is a document mark-up which allows documents to be used and shard on a variety of computer platforms in addition to being printed. Formatting documents using SGML standards allows a document to be processed in many different ways: formatted for printing, saved to a database, displayed on-line or combined with other data to create new documents or formats. The information will be independent of the programs which created it. Working with the Secretary of the Senate we hope to establish an SGML standard which will allow Members and committees to work on documents which can easily be exchanged, edited, reused and shared between the two bodies. This should include a method by which House and Committee documents can be filed electronically with the Clerk. The electronic version should be numbered, maintained as the official version, and made available to the House staff and the public as a first step. This will allow the House to consider limiting the number of printed documents. The electronic version can be distributed to the Library of Congress, the GPO (for the depository Library System), or whomever else needs it for further electronic distribution and should be printed by GPO only when necessary. Commercial word processing vendors such as Corel (Word Perfect), Microsoft, and others are marketing software which works with the SGML standard, storing documents according to Document Type Definitions defined by the user, in this case, the legislative branch agencies including the House. It is this support which should allow staff to type documents in their office and then store the document in an SGML format for transfer to Legislative Counsel, the Clerk or whomever needs it. However, existing marketplace standards must be followed and new versions of SGML declared to be improvements on the SGML standards cannot be used with commercial products. This will leave us in the same situation as we currently find ourselves, heavily dependent of specialists who mark-up documents adding complex printing codes. Questions from The Honorable Vic Fazio for the Clerk of the House Question. You have requested authority to create a separate line-item and funding for the creation of a Document Management System for the legislative operations of the House. Please provide a breakdown of what the $1.5 million request would be used for? Response. The money will be used for contracting for resources needed to begin the project. The FY 98 request includes money (1) to work with the Senate to develop SGML definitions of Congressional documents, (2) to develop full user requirements for Bill Drafting, Journal and Calendar preparation, print on demand and (3) to identify and purchase software (text editing) to replace the GPO's microcomp system and databased software to managing large volumes of text files. We plan to contract most of this work out rather than hire permanent employees whose services would no longer be required when the work is completed. Most of the money in the first year is devoted to SGML development. This is a very expensive proposition as demonstrated by projects currently underway in some state legislatures and based on the GPO and Senate experiences. Some work done by the GPO and the Senate can be reused, but a great deal of work remains to be done and further coordination efforts are necessary. A breakdown of the projected costs for FY 98 are as follows: Projected Costs: Fiscal Year 1998 Establish SGML Standards (Task Force with Secretary of the Senate): Project/Activities: A. Requirements Development and Tool Selection........ $25,000 B. Software........................................... 30,000 C. DTD development and Implementation................. 400,000 Document Management System: Hardware: A. Servers............................................ 50,000 B. Workstations....................................... 30,000 C. Optical Storage.................................... 150,000 D. Scanners........................................... 50,000 Software: Data repository (100-150 users)....................... 500,000 Workflow management................................... 250,000 Training: SGML Development...................................... 5,000 DBMS software......................................... 10,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________ Total............................................... 1,500,000 Question. How does your document management effort dovetail with CRS's Legislative Information System initiative? What problems, if any, have been encountered from your end? What policy questions--such as questions differentiating between the use of the information by the House and the dissemination of the information to the public--will eventually need to be answered by the Committee on House Oversight, the House leadership or the entire House? Response. The Legislative Information System being developed by CRS, is a PC/LAN based system using the same technology as the current World Wide Web/Internet. It will eventually replace their current mainframe-based SCORPIO system. As planned, it carries information supplied by the House and specifically from the Clerk's LIMS (Legislative Information Management System) maintained by HIR. The new technology is extremely flexible and allows the Clerk as well as other entities to provide more information in an easier to use format than has been available previously. Last fall, the Chairman of House Oversight wrote CRS asking they work closely with House users to insure the new system meets the needs of the House. As planned, the Document Management System will build documents based on the SGML standards, the same technology being adopted by CRS. My staff is working closely with CRS to ensure that documents and information can easily be transferred to or linked to the new system. Currently, the information managed by the Clerk is public information and is available on both the current systems and the future systems. There are, however, many other types of information being asked for by the general public or outside entities. For example, full text of amendments being offered in committee or before it comes to the House Floor, or Chairman's marks of legislation. This information is not currently handled under the Clerk's authority and we do not have it available. If the House wishes to make it available, several rules changes may have to be considered, but they are beyond the scope of the Clerk's office. Question. On page five of your submitted testimony you refer to ``publications previously produced by the Clerk only on paper will be provided in electronic form.'' Can you give some examples? Response. Some examples are: Nominees for the Office of United States Senator and for the Office of United States Representatives; Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election; The List of Members of the 105th Congress; The List of Committees for the 105th Congress; The Alphabetical List of Members and Their Committee Assignments for the 105th Congress. These documents were previously printed and distributed exclusively through the Clerk's office and often very limited runs of the paper documents were made. A good example is the final official list of the Membership of the 104th Congress. The distribution for this document in the past was less than 1,000 copies. We are working to post these documents on the Internet where they will be available electronically and can be printed by people who need the information long after the initial printing is exhausted. In some cases, the information in the documents becomes quickly outdated, but the electronic copy can be easily updated and available until the next time the documents are scheduled for printing. When we can recover the electronic data, we are posting documents of historical value which are also out of print, specifically, the election statistics for the 1992 and 1994 elections. This information is no long available on paper. However, by providing the information electronically on the Internet the information will be available to researchers indefinitely and can be printed as needed. Question. What is the timetable for your Document Management System effort? Response. I expect the entire effort to take three to five years and the system will be implemented in stages. In the document previously submitted to the Committee and to the Committee on House Oversight, several interim steps were outlined, some of which are being implemented during this Congress. Also, an important step is coordination with the Senate so as to not disrupt the flow of information and documents between the two bodies. The staff from the Office of the Clerk and the Secretary as well as the Senate Rules Committee and Committee on House Oversight meet regularly to coordinate the separate efforts in each body. Currently, the major emphasis is the joint development of SGML standards of which the efforts of both bodies will be based. A project plan was included in the conceptual design document submitted to the Committee on House Oversight last year. Included here is the highlevel schedule showing the major tasks and a projected timeline: [Page 65--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Question. The Inspector General released a year-end report entitled ``Opportunities Exist to Improve the Management of the Office of the Clerk.'' Can you summarize the IG's findings and tell us what steps you are taking to implement his recommendations? Response. The Inspector General indicated the Offices of the Clerk fully implemented the baseline objectives identified at the beginning of the 104th Congress and further, completed a number of other significant actions during the 104th Congress to improve operations, increase accountability and improve resource management. Of particular importance to me was the IG's evaluation that--the Clerk's immediate office has managed its duties in a hands on manner and at the same time empowered its employees to make improvements in their daily tasks. As a result the Clerk has made improvements in process and product while reducing appropriated positions from 302 in 1994 to 282 in 1996 and reducing total non-capital appropriations to $13,807,000 in 1996. Additionally, employee morale appears good as evidenced by the fact that, of the approximately 80 Job Activity Questionnaires (JAQs) and 20 employee interviews, all of the feedback suggested that conditions have improved. The IG's staff identified a modest but important list of areas where they believe further opportunities exist for the Clerk to utilize staff more efficiently, achieve cost savings and operate more effectively. Their findings and my responses follow. Finding A: The Cloak Rooms Appear to Have Several Underutilized Personnel Positions The Clerk agrees to study this matter further within the broader context of her current review of staffing/reporting responsibilities of the service groups and will forward a proposal to the Committee on House Oversight during FY 97. The Clerk does, however, believe that the KPMG review during a recess period did not allow the opportunity to illustrate to the auditors the operational responsibilities and pace the Republican and Democratic Cloak Rooms face during a legislative period. The diversity and frontline duties of the staff to assist members of both parties with technical legislative support, current information and basic office and related support needs far exceeds the currently available resources of the Cloak Room staff. While supplemented with the services of House Pages, the needs for experienced supervisory personnel must be understood. Finding B: Staffing Levels and Mix Required Within the Office of General Counsel Needs to be Reviewed The Clerk agrees to begin a staffing review and will forward a proposal to the Committee on House Oversight during FY 97. The audit suggests a comprehensive study of personnel and legal demands on and services of this office be conducted to determine whether reductions can be made. The Clerk will begin such an evaluation with an eye on a possible recommendation to reduce the number of support personnel. As a part of the study the Clerk may request the Committee on House Oversight consider the effects the splintering of legal support services for the House among House Officers has had on personnel levels. Finding C: Room and Board Fees for Pages Have Not Increased for 13 Years The Clerk agrees to study this matter further and forward a proposal to the House Page Board during FY 97. As an educational program, the Clerk believes the intent of the program is to provide a basic spending allowance for participants and recover a portion of the room and board costs via the monthly charges which may need to be evaluated periodically. Finding D: Page School Staff Appears to be Underutilized. The Clerk agrees to study this matter further and forward a proposal to the House Page Board during FY '97. The compressed school day and the need for specialized professional instructional staff to teach the House Page students make this proposal difficult. If the student-teacher ratio were changed to reduce costs, it would raise multiple concerns. As example, as part of the re- certification deemed by the Middle States Association earlier this year, the objectives of expanding, not maintaining or reducing, the current academic subjects available to students, were clearly articulated. IG Recommendation: The Inspector General recommends that the Clerk work with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Sergeant at Arms to establish a consistent system for tracking and managing the implementation of prior audit recommendations. Management Response: The Clerk agrees that such coordination is important to the success of the institution and the implementation of various audits. As a point of fact, the Clerk would also highlight the responsibilities of the Committee on House Oversight regarding the daily coordination of all House Officer activities. Further, the Inspector General no doubt has in place a tracking system. Perhaps it has functions which could be easily transferred to the individual officers thereby offering consistency not only among the officers' tracking systems but the Inspector General and Committee on House Oversight's systems as well. office of the sergeant at arms Mr. Trandahl. Could I have the Sergeant at Arms be brought to the table. For salaries and expenses, $3,598,000 is requested. Included in this request is $3,189,000 for personnel and $409,000 for nonpersonnel related expenses. I introduce the Honorable William S. Livingood, the Sergeant at Arms of the House, here to testify on behalf of his fiscal year 1998 budget request, and I ask that the table on page 25 be inserted into the record. Mr. Walsh. Without objection. [The information follows:] [Page 68--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Bill, welcome. I know this is a busy day for you with the President coming up. Lots of security issues. We won't hold you up too long. I will withhold any questions and go to Mr. Serrano, or if you would like to make an opening statement. study of the capitol Mr. Livingood. I think I will just submit my statement, sir. There is just one item I wanted to add to that statement. One of the accomplishments I did not mention in my statement was the joint Secret Service, Capitol Police, and Sergeant at Arms study of the Capitol complex completed this last year; this was an exhaustive study about the security of the Capitol. We are in the process of implementing suggestions and recommendations. Mr. Walsh. Okay. [The information follows:] [Pages 70 - 72--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] questions for the sergeant at arms Mr. Cunningham. Just one question. Have you looked at delta or the ongoing negotiation of unionization on the costs and the variance of costs? Mr. Livingood. I am sorry, sir? Mr. Cunningham. I understand that the unions are coming in and looking at unionizing different branches. Is there any delta information on what the cost significance may be of that? Mr. Livingood. We have not done a study on that at all, I don't think--this will come up during the Capitol Police budget, but I don't see any difference or change in that, any increased costs at all. Mr. Cunningham. Okay. Mr. Walsh. Are there any problems with or any ideas that you would like to get before us early on that you wanted to deal with? acknowledgement of subcommittee Mr. Livingood. No, sir. The committee and staff have been very cooperative and generous with this office, particularly in matters of security. We are striving to get the best security possible in an open environment and allow easy access for the public, the Members, and their staff. I think the Committee has given us guidance and assistance in all the areas that we have sought. I particularly thank the Committee for that. In particular, we have taken over parking security, and I think that has worked out extremely well. We have provided uniforms for staff, thanks to the Committee. And we took over the function of chamber security, from the old Doorkeeper's Office. I think that is working very well. We have new training programs for all staff. More security related for both parking security and for chamber security. You have been working with us on some of these changes and recommendations from this study. And we appreciate that very much. Mr. Walsh. We have a real challenge. We all want the people's House to be as accessible as possible to the people. We don't want barricades, we don't want shielded-off galleries and so on. But we also want to have our security. So you are entrusted with a real sticky wicket. Mr. Livingood. I as well aware of that situation having come from the Secret Service. During my White House days, when the President was out campaigning, we wanted to keep him in a bank vault and transport him only by tank. Mr. Walsh. What a great situation if you could have done that this year. We will have to keep that in mind for 4 years from now. Mr. Livingood. But there are some similarities. Mr. Fazio. We have had problems with our candidates getting in tanks. Mr. Walsh. Any other comments, questions, or puns? All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Livingood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the committee. chief administrative officer's budget request Mr. Trandahl. Since I am already at the table for the Office of Chief Administrative Officer, the fiscal year 1998 funding request is $59,688,000. At the conclusion of my submitted statement, or after I give my statement, I would ask that the following information on pages 26 to 40 be inserted into the record. Mr. Walsh. Without objection. Mr. Trandahl. I appreciate having the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to outline the fiscal year 1998 budget submission of the Offices of the Chief Administrative Officer. As the Acting Chief Administrative Officer, I have had the responsibility to maintain and guide the operations of the Offices of the CAO until a permanent replacement is named. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the details of this organization, the Office of the CAO was established at the beginning of the 104th Congress. The organization was created by transferring administrative offices and responsibilities from various House support entities and offices under this new House officer position. The basic intent of creating this office was to place under one organization all the various nonlegislative administrative responsibilities and services of the House. organizational components Included as part of my statement is a detailed organizational chart with division listings. Also included is a chart showing fiscal year 1997 funding levels by division compared with fiscal year 1998 requests. These specific details are certain to assist individuals in understanding the diversity and scope of responsibilities under the purview of the CAO. Simply, the organization consists of six divisions overseeing 31 offices, more than 600 House personnel and has oversight responsibility for more than 200 contracts and an estimated 325 tprivatized contract employees. cao fy 1998 budget submission Before outlining the fiscal year 1998 budget, I would like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to the many of you who have shown me support and guidance in my short tenure in this position. It has truly been a pleasure to work with the professionals throughout the CAO organization and others interested in the operations of the House and the continuation of reforms to improve the services and support provided for the House membership. Let me add that I have neither been nor do I wish to be a candidate for the position permanently. I accepted this role as an acting appointment, and I continue to view my role in those terms. We in the CAO organization clearly understand the need to respond to the requirements of the House, its Members and responsibilities. We are clearly and simply a service organization, and we pride ourselves on our ability to assist and support the House whenever possible. As the Acting Chief Administrative Officer, I was asked to provide two basic functions throughout my short service-- hopefully short service: first, to maintain stability and continuity in the operations and, second, to execute actions that provided opportunity and options for the future CAO. As part of those efforts, I submitted the budget submission before you today. Simply, this budget submission is not perfect, and it is my intention to hold open various options and proposals before the Subcommittee so the next CAO can assist the Committee in prioritizing the objectives of the Offices of the CAO prior to this Subcommittee's markup on the fiscal year 1998 spending bill. As outlined in the notes before the Members of the Subcommittee, the fiscal year 1998 request I have submitted contains a total funding request of $59,688,000, a $4,479,000 increase or 8.1 percent increase compared to fiscal year 1997 funding. I recognize that this funding request is most likely beyond the abilities of the Subcommittee to support, and I would anticipate a lower budget request to be developed between the CAO organization and the Subcommittee prior to markup after a permanent CAO has been elected by the House. cao personnel increases The 8.1 percent increase outlined before you today is the result of increasing CAO personnel by $3,211,000 to $33,403,000, a 10.6 percent increase. This increase is the result of maintaining fiscal year 1997 personnel funding, adding funding for scheduled longevity and merit increases, adjustments in anticipated position classifications, estimated overtime costs, cost of living adjustments and the creation of 37 additional FTEs. In addition, the request includes an increase of $1,268,000 for House equipment and other nonpersonnel costs. I ask that my formal statement be submitted for the record. I recognize that this is simply a brief overview of the operations and the pending fiscal year 1998 funding request to better articulate the daily responsibilities activities and proposals before the CAO. I have also included a brief outline of the office's operation and comparative schedules for the overall CAO operational costs for fiscal year 1996 and estimates for 1997 and fiscal year 1998. I and some CAO staff are here and prepared to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much. Mr. Trandahl. Thank you. [The information follows:] [Pages 76 - 91--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. You are quite sure about not wanting to continue that? You made that very clear. Mr. Trandahl. Quite sure. Mr. Serrano. Playing hard to get. vendor payment concerns Mr. Walsh. Good thing to do. I have a couple of questions, if I may. There was a real issue as you know, when you took over the office, of late payments to vendors and organizations that the Congress was doing business with. Obviously, it is not a good idea for the House of Representatives to be late in its payments to vendors and doesn't set a very good example. Would you care to comment on what your office has done to resolve that issue, and what sort of problems we might anticipate, if any? Mr. Trandahl. For historical background, I would mention to the Members that last summer and early fall we had a voucher processing problem, and many of you in your personal offices or committee offices experienced late payments, and we were getting past due notices, and it became a fairly public issue. At that particular time the Finance Office, which is the organization responsible for the processing of voucher payments to vendors, was also beginning the implementation phase of what was called FFS, which is a financial management system that they are bringing into the House to add accountability and better management. So they began implementation and were running a dual process, and in essence we didn't have the personnel within the Finance Office to be doing the traditional responsibility at the same time this new activity was happening. improvements in implementing ffs Now, in response to that, additional resources were added. We slowed the implementation of FFS and stepped back to come up with a more methodical process. Since I have been there, thankfully, we have our target date of 5 days, which is the normal processing time for voucher payments once they arrive in the Finance Office, and we seem to be on target. The latest numbers that we have on our processing chart, which we will submit for the record, show that we are actually below our targeted goal. [The information follows:] [Page 93--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] additional voucher delays possible Now, there are some other ways--other types of delays may occur. Some of you may have outstanding equipment requests that are currently at the Office of Systems Management because the end of the calendar year is the time when most Members tend to spend a little bit of money out of their MRA account to upgrade their computers. There is currently a small backlog of orders there. That backlog is a traditional backlog that we experience every 2 years or every year when Members are purchasing equipment, and we have prioritized those requests based on incoming freshmen Members who don't have computers yet, and we are working through that process. Mr. Walsh. When the problem was at its worst, it was a combination of a backlog because of whatever management problems or problems with the existing system, and the implementation of a new financial management system probably to deal with the problem that they were dealing with at the time, and it compounded the problem? Is that safe to say? Mr. Trandahl. Yes, very safe. [A question from Ms. Kaptur and response follow:] Question: What is the status of House payment to vendors? Response. There is a five day processing time target for vouchers. During October and November 1996 there was a five day processing average. In the month of December, the average processing time was six days. The January 1997 average was approximately 6.5 days. federal financial system, ffs Mr. Walsh. What is the status of that new FFS? Mr. Trandahl. We are still in the implementation stages. The IG has completed an audit. Mr. Walsh. You are satisfied that that will work for the office? Mr. Trandahl. Yes. We have a lot of work to do, though. We have spent considerable time defining the processes of the House. We are meeting the needs and the expectations of the House. It is a system in which considerable resources have already been invested. We are down the trail, so to speak, quite a way in terms of bringing the system in. It is intended to add better management, accountability and audit trails for the House. Mr. Walsh. Are you requesting additional funds to implement that system? Mr. Trandahl. Now, within the 1998 request that I have before you, yes, there are some additional staff positions that would be slated to go into the Office of Finance to assist in that effort. Now, I would also add here, though, that I would anticipate that a CAO--an incoming CAO would be able to potentially help if not completely balance out by reducing other areas of the CAO budget to bring those priorities in. Mr. Walsh. You don't feel--in your judgment this is not a case of putting good money after bad? Mr. Trandahl. No, I don't feel that way. At the same time, though, I believe it is fairly safe to say that we view this as a system that has a use and a utility up to date certain, and that there will be new systems to follow. It is an evolutionary process. We are bringing new requirements into the House that we have never done before. We have learned a lot through that process. We are going to have a system that works, but we are definitely going to have future systems, and we have learned this time around what we need more clearly. [A question from Ms. Kaptur and response follow:] Question. What is the current status of the Federal Financial System (FFS)? Do you agree with the IG's evaluation of the system? How much have we spent on this project so far? When will Member offices and Committees see a tangible product that will facilitate the administrative tasks in our offices? Response. The Federal Financial System (FFS) is currently in the Phase II system which includes establishing and implementing the core FFS system. This phase is anticipated to be completed this year. We do agree with the Inspector General's overall evaluation of the system. Additional resources have recently been approved by the Committee on House Oversight to assist in the day to day operations and management of the FFS system as well as being an integral part in the remainder of Phase II and future phases. The cost of FFS to date, including actual disbursements and outstanding obligations, has been $8.5 million. Phase III of FFS includes the migration of input and retrieval to offices which will facilitate the administrative tasks in offices. A time table has yet to be compiled until a thorough needs analysis and requirements definition is completed. telecommunication budget Mr. Walsh. Okay. My other question is on the telecommunications budget. We are being asked to appropriate funds for new switches and terminal equipment; right? Mr. Trandahl. I am going to turn to Ken Miller, who runs House Information Resources, and he can briefly outline that. Mr. Walsh. We might be jumping ahead. We will get this out of the way now and leave early. Mr. Kenneth Miller. Thank you. The question is are we investing in a new switch? Mr. Walsh. Yes. new digital telephones Mr. Kenneth Miller. There is $3.3 million in the net telecommunications budget, and that $3.3 million includes $800,000 in upgrades to the two new switches that we put in in 1996, $2.1 million for 7,000 new digital telephones, that would be the completion of the implementation for the House, and $420,000 of that $3.3 million for installation of those telephones. Mr. Walsh. The switches are digital; the existing sets are analog? Mr. Kenneth Miller. The switches are digital, and the existing sets are not digital. Mr. Walsh. The idea is to put digital equipment behind the switch. Obviously, the existing telephone sets will work. Mr. Kenneth Miller. Right, they are running off the other switches. Mr. Walsh. So why are we putting in new phones? Mr. Kenneth Miller. Well, the telephones that we have are approaching 11 years of age now, and we are putting them in for a number of reasons; one, the new features. One is Caller ID, and the ability to have ISDN lines as well as other features. Mr. Walsh. Caller ID? Mr. Kenneth Miller. Plus the concern for security. Mr. Walsh. You could put a separate unit in each office that would provide Caller ID without buying new phone sets; right? Mr. Kenneth Miller. I suspect that is true. I don't know. Mr. Walsh. And what is the application for ISDN? Mr. Kenneth Miller. Well, it is for linkage to the district offices to support video conferencing and future multimedia applications. Mr. Walsh. Wouldn't they have to have ISDN capabilities at the district offices, too? Mr. Kenneth Miller. Yes, many do have that ISDN capability; not all do. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Serrano. Mr. Serrano. On that, telecommunications, we are hearing about phones. Could you just very briefly tell us how the whole system would change our daily operation; I mean, besides the Caller ID, which is fine. But that doesn't get---- Mr. Kenneth Miller. Six-way conferencing would be one of the features that will be helpful in the offices. And I think the other piece is not a feature, but making sure that we have a reliable telephone system for the House because we have one of the largest telephone systems in a single location with 20,000 lines, and the concern is always that we are capable of providing the very best communication services to the House, since that is one of the primary activities of the Members and the staffs. [Questions from Mr. Fazio and responses follow:] Question. I understand that there may be an effort underway to eliminate the so-called ``soft lines'' in Member offices, which may have an adverse impact on the budgets of a number of offices who use them. Decisions of this nature which will have a budget impact on Members should be communicated to Members early so their input can be sought, and so they can communicate with the Committee on House Oversight. What is the status of this proposal? Response. No effort is currently underway to eliminate the soft lines that are available from the House Telecommunications System. The Inspector General, in his Telecommunications Cost Audit, recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer develop a proposal, for approval by the Committee on House Oversight, to establish and implement a new charge back structure that eliminates the incentive-oriented program for providing ``soft lines'' at no charge and provides rates that reasonably and equitably distribute costs among both District Inward Dialing and ``soft line'' users. In response to the Inspector General, the CAO stated that HIR Client Services will fully analyze costs, benefits and ramifications of eliminating the no charge policy of soft lines and forward a proposal containing this analysis to the Committee on House Oversight prior to the end of fiscal year 1997. Due to the resource requirements necessary to install the 105th Congress, this effort has not yet begun. However, the CAO has every intention to keep the due date commitment. Question. My office traditionally received excellent service from the Office of Telephone Services. However, I understand that a significant backlog of telephone requests exists for this department. Please provide statistics that would permit the committee to track workload in this area. Indicate the number of requests received and the number satisfied for whatever period you have statistics. If there is any backlog, indicate how you intend to deal with it. Response. The Telecommunications group is currently receiving approximately 70 requests per day, almost double the normal amount of 36 orders per day. Some of this increase is attributable to the new Congress but even prior to January, requests were up 30%. Telecommunications has traditionally been able to process an order in 1-3 days. That interval is currently 4-10 days. If the rate of orders continues at the current pace, the backlog will not be eliminated without additional assistance. Telecommunications has been dealing with this backlog by working extra hours and by contracting with Lucent Technologies for a technician with the skills to process orders in the telephone management system. The technical skills required to process orders requires significant training in our vendor's proprietary system. We are investigating opportunities for gaining assistance from other departments in processing purchase orders and other related functions associated with FFS. These procedures will allow more time for processing orders. Question. What is the current actual FTE level for OTS? Is it sufficient to accommodate the workload? Response. As described below, there is no longer a single Office of Telephone Services. The number of FTEs for customer services is 12, which includes one manager. This level of support is the same as it was in ``OTS'', with the exception of a receptionist to answer and direct calls. While the Telecommunications group has always focused on using technology and improving processes instead of hiring more staff, the current workload indicates that more staff may be required. As stated earlier, requests are up 30 percent. These increases are mostly associated with AUDIX voice mail, celluar telephones, district office orders, and the administration of two new telephone switches. The additional requirements for using FFS have also added to the workload. As a result, productivity would be greatly improved with the addition of a Telephone Administrator to process orders and a staff assistant for clerical tasks. [Questions from Mr. Fazio and responses follow:] Question. What is the status of the installation of new phone sets for House offices. Is the work proceeding on schedule, and if not, what factors are affecting the installations and what is the projected timetable for completion? To what extent, if any, is the changeover affecting the processing of normal telephone requests for Member offices, and how are these competing demands prioritized? Response. The implementation of new telephones is on schedule with the first installations scheduled for the week of March 3. New Member offices have all received the new phones and follow-up work is almost complete. The entire project is expected to take approximately two years. Lucent Technologies is responsible for project management and implementation activities. There is some involvement by the Telecommunications group amounting to about 10% per week. Work associated with this project is scheduled as is most telecommunications work on a first come, first served basis. [Questions from Ms. Kaptur and responses follow:] Question. What is the status of the new telephone system? When will the new telephone system be fully deployed? Response. New digital telephones have been installed in all new Member offices, nine Member early adopter offices, the Republican Conference, the Democratic Caucus, the CHO minority staff office, and House Information Resources. The FY97 budget includes funding to install up to 5,000 new telephone installations. The FY98 budget appropriation request includes a request for the additional 7,000 telephone sets and features required for the two G3R digital switches that were installed in FY96. This would complete the installation of the telephones late in 1998. Question. Have you spoken to the IG in regards to his assessment of the CyberCongress initiative? Could we get a breakdown of the cost of the project? When do you expect to have the project fully operational? What do you expect will be the total cost of the project? Response. Over the past few months the CAO and Inspector General have discussed and evaluated various projects relative to House Information Resources and the CyberCongress initiative. As part of various IG studies and audits relative to HIR performance, the CyberCongress has been evaluated. As the Subcommittee is aware, the CyberCongress initiative is a combination of a broad set of projects that address the infrastructure, the legislative and administrative operations, Member and Committee offices, and the extension of the House constituents through the Web. The initiative continues to evolve with the changing needs and desires of the House and changing technologies. It should consistently evolve with timeliness, cost and benefit in mind. The itemized cost and projected total cost for this project has yet to be determined. video conferencing Mr. Serrano. One last question. The video conferencing will be all-encompassing and will allow us to communicate with other than our district offices? Mr. Kenneth Miller. Yes, yes. Mr. Serrano. Local colleges? Mr. Kenneth Miller. Yes, throughout the district, and there are two ways that that is being handled: One, in the recording studio the capability to do video conferences without having it in your office; and, secondly, to be able to actually have it at your desktop. We have a few Members who have it at the desktop now, and that does give them the capability to go not only to the district, but also anywhere really in the world that would accept that capability. Mr. Serrano. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Wamp? Mr. Latham? unexpended balances Mr. Wamp. I have a general question. I represent an area with Federal facilities in it, and this deal of unexpended balances is confusing to me, even keeping up with the 2 billion that flows into the Third District of Tennessee every year. Do we have at this subcommittee level any kind of long-term strategy to simplify this process of carryover money now that we are not spending on an annual basis? Mr. Trandahl. Are we talking about the appropriation level versus the authorization level of accounts? Mr. Wamp. As I look through each one of these accounts and I see a wide latitude of variation on unexpended balances from year to year, is there a long-term strategy on how to consolidate that? Mr. Trandahl. Actually, I think the confusion of what we are seeing there is the fiscal year 1997 first quarter expended and the fiscal year 1996 expended as well as the fiscal year 1998 request. The fiscal year 1997 number that you see there is actually only the first quarter of the fiscal year, and that is why you see a drop and then a giant jump and then a requested number. Mr. Wamp. So we are not actually carrying funds over from year to year? Mr. Trandahl. No. Mr. Wamp. I am new, and I will learn. Mr. Fazio. Our ability to do that a few years ago was circumscribed on the Floor. We have 1-year carryover now? Two? Mr. Lombard, I was seeking information from you. Mr. Lombard. Obligational authority lapses after the first fiscal year. For those obligations that have been made, the funds stay on the books for 3 years in order to pay them when payment invoices are received. Mr. Fazio. Those are obligations we have agreed to pay. The unspent funding no longer resides with this committee to reprogram in future fiscal years. We have actually tightened down on that process quite a bit. Mr. Wamp. Thank you. additional video conferencing Mr. Walsh. Mr. Fazio, do you have any questions? Tom? Mr. Latham. I would just have a question, I guess, about the video conference issue. In the district, what are you going to need as far as facilities? We are totally set up with fiber optics throughout the State, and every community basically. Mr. Kenneth Miller. At the desktop, you need a personal computer capable of accepting the card that would support video conferencing. That would include having a camera that would sit on top of the desktop and an ISDN line back to the Hill. Mr. Latham. Okay. vendor payment concerns, continued Mr. Serrano. If I may, I thought we were just asking HIR questions. I recall that last year one of the fears was that Members would submit their vouchers on time, but we would somehow run the risk of reading about ourselves in the papers as not paying our bills on time, personally. But I also remember at that time that part of the problem was not what the House was not doing, but also the fact that one of our credit card vendors had a lot of problems in terms of what our records looked like. Things appeared or didn't appear, and it took a while to get that straightened out. Will it change that somewhat? Mr. Trandahl. Because we run so many bills through the Finance Office, we traditionally have vendor problems where we have gotten bad billing by a vendor being late or double billings or a myriad of issues. The thing that did push us over the edge in late summer/early fall was the fact that we did have a situation here where we were attempting to put in dual financial systems. Members were correctly submitting bills, along with the payment papers to go with them. We just did not have the staff to do the processing part of it. And the Committee on House Oversight quickly intervened, and they reallocated staff resources over there and got the time frame down. We are doing okay now, but you are correct, you are absolutely right on the history. We had an example there where we had a vendor problem in addition. Mr. Serrano. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. Vic. Mr. Fazio. I wanted to, first of all, say to Jeff, and I really think you are doing a good job. You come from the old Pat Roberts College of Good Humor, which make its a lot easier to work with you and the people over there, and I appreciate that. I think it would really help all the members of the committee, however, if they read the Inspector General's report on the Chief Administrative Officer's office. I think we don't need to go into a lot of it now, it is old history. But there are clearly some lessons to be learned, the concern about gag orders to the House Oversight Committee and the concern about reprisal for people who questioned any action within the organization. I am sure that is no longer in place, and I am very happy to hear about it, but I think we do have to try to make some progress. I know some of the questions that have already been raised are concerns of mine. Twenty-five of the 37 full-time equivalent positions you have asked for would be assigned to the Finance Office; is that correct? Mr. Trandahl. Yes, that is correct. contract assistance Mr. Fazio. Does that mean that we would no longer have to rely on outside vendors for contract assistance? Mr. Trandahl. It would be my hope--that was an IG recommendation, actually. We had relied considerably on contract assistance to try to help us get current under that law. Mr. Fazio. It was useful at that time. We couldn't have begun to catch up without that. Mr. Trandahl. And we have been on a downhill slide in terms of reducing our reliance on it. One of the results of the Peat Marwick audit suggested that we get to the stage where if we had a high tide, that we be able to go to contract employees. But if it is routine, we ought to have our employees---- Mr. Fazio. In general, we would like to be able to maintain a decent flow with our own people? finance office staffing Mr. Trandahl. Exactly. And that is part of this. Now, we are also in the process of putting together a comprehensive staffing plan for the Finance Office that will be going to the Committee on House Oversight. Now, this 25 additional FTE estimate, that is an estimate based on the earliest possible prediction that I could have in the first week as interim CAO. We would hope it would not be that high. But at the same time we were planning for all contingencies, and we will prepare a draft plan, and when the permanent CAO is put in place, it would be up to that individual to forward it on to the committee. Mr. Fazio. You should be commended for accepting without exception all of the concerns expressed--some would say criticisms by the IG. I think that shows a very positive attitude. And there is no point in recriminations, but I think some of these concerns were noted early on when reductions were made that made it impossible for us to handle some of the other workload. Where are the other 12 positions going to be? other staff increases Mr. Trandahl. Scattered throughout the entire CAO organization. There are different priority issues that have been established. There were earlier notes in terms of the budget request that was going to be sent down to the OMB that had highlighted where these additional positions would go in. They were random. Some were administrative staff in the different offices and things. I kept the 12 additional positions that were being requested from the administrative staff or the associate administrative staff. There was a theory that it would be offset with other reductions in other areas. And I would--there again, the permanent CAO can determine where the priorities would be. It would not be my anticipation that--my submitted statement goes on to say that it would not be my anticipation that the permanent CAO would request those. [Questions from Mr. Fazio and responses follow:] Question. Last year, House Information Resources reported that they were understaffed by 20%. What is the current staffing level and what number and percent does this fall short of HIR's authorized level? If they are short, what steps are being taken to fill the positions? To what degree do Human Resources procedures have an impact on filling these positions? Response. HIR's current staffing is 239, 31 below the authorized staffing of 270 (11.5%). HIR is continuing to actively pursue qualified candidates for open positions. A reorganization recommendation with attendant Position Description changes is being prepared for review by the Committee on House Oversight in March. Once this recommendation has been reviewed and approved, a large percentage of the current openings will be filled. The market for information and communications technology professionals is very competitive in the Washington metro area and this makes the task increasingly difficult. Human Resources procedures have no negative impact on filling these positions. They continue to provide advice, counsel, and support. Question. It has come to my attention that the Furniture Resource Center, commonly known as ``office furnishings,'' may be understaffed for the level of requests it is receiving. What is the requested FTE level for this department, what is the actual staffing level, and how does this compare to the requested and actual FTE levels for the past four years? Response. Requested FTE level............................................... 107 FY '97 FTE level.................................................. 98 Estimate--Projected using four months of actual activity and forecasting the remaining months based on the last month remaining constant............................................ 101 FY '96 FTE level.................................................. 112 Actual............................................................ 105 FY '95 FTE level.................................................. 129 Actual............................................................ 118 FY '94 FTE level.................................................. 150 Actual............................................................ 129 Question. Anecdotal evidence indicates that office furnishings may have as many as 1000 backlogged requests, with little hope of cutting down on this number appreciably in the near future. Member offices are universal in their praise for the hard work this department does on their behalf, but they should expect adequate staffing in order to receive timely response to their needs in the furniture area. Please provide statistics that would permit the committee to track the workload in this area. Indicate the number of requests received and the number satisfied for whatever time period you have statistics (e.g., day, week, month, quarter). If there is any backlog, indicate how you intend to deal with it. I also understand that the increased use of overtime or the use of temporaries has been frowned upon as a temporary remedy. Is this the right policy in the light of the backlog? Response. From December 1, 1996 through February 27, 1997: 11,083 work orders were written; 9,278 work orders were completed. The backlog consists of 1,805 work orders. 40% of the backlog orders are deliverable and are being worked on daily. 40% of backlog is in need of repair/refinishing/reupholster or construction, which are also being worked on daily. The remaining 20% are items that are no longer in the furniture inventory and unavailable for delivery. In order to complete the outstanding work orders the Furniture Resource Center has temporarily suspended new construction orders on a case by case basis. The focus is to manage the backlog priorities, which require some employee overtime. The use of temporary help in the trade shops is not feasible due to the lack of available shop work space. Any additional FTE's in these shops would infringe on the capacity of the shop, thus creating a possible safety hazard. Temporary help in the labor division would enable additional delivery capabilities. The use of temporary help was utilized during the Congressional office moves. Question. As the House continues to be upgraded to cope with advanced computer and telecommunications applications, it draws attention to the fact that much of the furniture stock is decades old and in need of constant repair. What steps do you anticipate, if any, to acquire more modern furniture or to replace the House's aging furniture stock? Response. The House's aging furniture stock, specifically desks, was last replaced twenty years ago. The current desk inventory is under constant repair by the Furniture Resource Center and reamins in high demand. There are currently enough desks in the inventory to meet the demand. However, after numerous repairs from office moves over the years and general day to day usage, it will eventually become nonproductive to repair these desks. The estimated costs for desk replacements exceeds several million dollars. The cost for these desks will have to be phased in over a period of years due to the high replacement cost and will be addressed in the FY 1999 budget. Several studies and proposals have been done over the years regarding the use of modular furniture in House Office buildings. None of these studies have been conclusive in terms of their long term benefit to the House. Currently, the Furniture Resource Center is developing a long term plan, including cost estimates for the replacement of the aging furniture. staffing procedures Mr. Fazio. There were some questions that the IG indicated that related to the CAO's requirement of going through the Office of Human Resources when trying to staff up. It seemed that there might be delays there that would allow you to bring on the qualified people in a timely manner. Are you still required to go that route even though you now have House Oversight as your oversight body? Mr. Trandahl. Well, the Human Resources Office basically provides an administrative function as well as the legal function for the CAO's office to ensure that we are advertising positions, and people who are getting positions are of quality and education to fit the positions that they are being put into. I am unfamiliar that we have a delay in the Human Resources Office per se. I view it as a very cooperative collaborative effort between the other staff, the other managers, between the Departments and our people. [A question from Mr. Fazio and response follow:] Question. There have been a number of recent termination's within departments overseen by the CAO. Please describe the normal CAO termination policies and process. Have these policies and processes been followed in recent months? What is the current policy for awarding accumulated annual leave, and is this policy being applied uniformly for all terminated employees? Response. CAO employees can be released under ``At Will'' authority or for cause. CAO employees separated under ``At Will'' authority have traditionally been provided two weeks of administrative leave. CAO employees released for cause are immediately separated. Under guidelines approved by the Committee on House Oversight, all House Officer employees are entitled to compensation for up to 30 calendar days of accrued annual leave upon their separation from employment for any reason. Appropriate documentation is required to certify an individual's payment. procurement delays Mr. Fazio. We can ask Mr. Lainhart about that recommendation, but I think he is also concerned about the procurement, even small purchases being sometimes delayed, a too cumbersome bureaucratic process. Maybe if you have any comment on that, fine. Otherwise, we can bring those up with him. Mr. Trandahl. I would just add on the procurement process, we have a system right now that is currently a paper-driven process where you do go through multiple levels, and we have determined that--that is an electronic effort. We do have a problem in the fact that we are mirroring almost identically the paper processes, and I believe the IG--part of his recommendations, basically, is suggesting that we might be able to alleviate some of the steps in the processes, especially on small procurements. [A question from Mr. Fazio and response follows:] Question. The Inspector General's report on the Chief Administrative Officer's office said that ``the procurement approval process requires an excessive number of approvals within the CAO organization, for even the small purchases.'' What specific problems has HIR experienced with procedures of the Office of Purchasing and Procurement and what effect has that had in carrying out HIR duties? Response. There are multiple reviews and approvals by the procurement process, which does not delegate procurement authority commensurate with levels of mission responsibility. The multiple reviews necessarily consume time, not just in the actual inspections, but also in transit (between different offices and buildings) and administrative tracking of the documents. This should see improvement with the advent of automated, paperless systems such as the Procurement Desktop system currently being piloted at HIR. Meanwhile, the recent delegation of procurement authority to the Office of Procurement and Purchasing to approve purchases less than $10,000 should result in immediate improvement in turnaround time for the bulk of HIR's orders. year 2000 readiness Mr. Fazio. Do you still go forward with something called the year 2000 issue? I understand the IG was concerned about progress on that. Is that still part of the agenda? Mr. Kenneth Miller. Oh, yes. Mr. Fazio. Do you want to comment on that? Mr. Kenneth Miller. Sure. The year 2000 is an issue that everyone around the world is concerned about relative to the information systems and the other systems that are in place simply because most systems that were built in the 1970s and 1980s or even in the 1990s went with two-position date fields, and that is not going to do it for us. We have quite an effort now started to ensure that our systems are either going to be moved to a new platform that will be year-2000-compliant or in some cases will be made year- 2000-compliant simply because there is not enough time to move them to another platform. That work is underway. And there is a request for money in the fiscal year 1998 budget to support that. Mr. Fazio. And that will bring us up to date with our original schedule on that project? Mr. Kenneth Miller. Yes. Well, it is a big project, Mr. Fazio, and there is a lot of work, and it is the only time we are ever going to do this. Mr. Fazio. John's eyes were rolling a little bit behind you. Obviously this is a monumental task. Mr. Kenneth Miller. It is a major task because we have to look at every one of our operational systems and make sure that we are going to make it when the clock strikes 2000. Mr. Fazio. I don't want to delay the committee, but I think these are major expenditures for this function in a relatively short time frame, and people need to know why we are doing it, what we hope to get out of it. I have been associated, regrettably, with other efforts like this in the legislative branch that have come with great fanfare to naught, and we don't want to have that happen again, including one at the GAO of all places. So, I did want to try to get that on the record. I have some other questions, Mr. Chairman, I will put on the record. [Questions from Mr. Fazio and responses follows:) Question: Are you cooperating with CRS's Legislative Information System initiative and what, if any, problems have been encountered from the HIR end? Response. Following the October 1996 letter from the Committee on House Oversight to CRS requesting inclusion of the House in the development of the Legislative Information System (LIS), the Associate Administrator for HIR authorized his planning manager to coordinate plans with CRS on the development of LIS. HIR's Technical Support Representatives (TSRs) and several groups of the House's user community have discussed the initial version and suggestions for its improvement with CRS. The Training team is contributing curriculum development for training on the LIS, which will be modular and coordinated with counterparts in the Senate. Staff in HIR's Internet Services Group have agreed to assist with the functional specification of information search technology at CRS's request. No problems have been encountered from the HIR end of our collaboration with CRS. Question. The IG's report has a number of criticisms of HIR's long-range planning, in particular the fact that it ``has not completed a comprehensive needs analysis and cost/benefit analysis of its mainframe migration project that could conceivably result in increased costs and decreased service levels.'' I am particularly interested in the treatment of systems that have historically constituted the Member Information Network. Please summarize the issues regarding mainframe migration and the plan for the most widely-used MIN systems, such as the Newswire, Hotline and LEGIS? Response. There are three major elements regarding the mainframe migration plan. They are the migration of appropriate applications to three tiered client server architectures, the preparation of legacy systems that can't be migrated at this time for Year 2000 compliance, and the reduction in the size and cost of the MVS platform as these applications are migrated. HIR recently replaced the mainframe that had been operational throughout the 104th Congress with an Enterprise Server that runs legacy systems but takes 5% of the floor space of the previous system. This change will save the House over $500,000 in hardware, software, and maintenance costs over the next 2 years. The system will also reduce the Architect's annual power expense by an estimated $60,000 per year. The MIN/ISIS system will also be moving to different platforms over the next few years. It is anticipated that the newswires, Hotline, and LEGIS will be available via the House Intranet or the Internet World Wide Web. The Hotline will be accessible only via the Web in the very near future. The objective of these changes is to provide an easy to use common interface (a Web browser) that is accessible from any desktop or laptop system. Question. The IG also pointed out overlap between the CAO's office and HIR for the so-called ``Cyber-Congress'' initiative. I'm also concerned that little progress has been shown to demonstrate even one Member office function that would take advantage of ``seamless electronic transactions'' as envisioned in the original ``Office 2000'' initiative. What are the immediate goals for Cyber-Congress and what progress can you report on the office functions aspect of it? Response. The Cyber-Congress initiative's objective is to position Members, Committees, and their staffs to increase the quality and productivity of their work by taking advantage of the most appropriate, timely, and cost effective communications and information systems technology. The immediate goals are to: 1. Provide a secure, high quality, multi-faceted communications backbone for voice, data and video based systems. 2. Provide a highly reliable, robust messaging system capable of handling a variety of current and future House, office application requirements. 3. Provide Intranet, Internet services that are comparable to top internet service providers. 4. Maintain a highly reliable and secure environment to conduct House business electronically. 5. Implement a list of system applications prioritized by the House community that enhance the operation and effectiveness of Member and committee offices and legislative and administrative systems. In the office: new desktop systems have been installed in all but seven offices; the new Exchange messaging system is operational in over 50% of the House; new digital telephones are operational in new Member offices and being installed in returning Members offices and committees; new software to support the latest desktop applications including the Netscape Web browser and anti-virus protection is operational; just under 250 Members, Committees and other offices have operational Web sites today; and the new desktop video conferencing system is available. Mr. Wamp. If the gentleman will yield, on the year 2000 issue, is there any coordination between the legislative branch and the executive branch on this problem, as it is a huge problem that everybody is scared to death could bring the country to its knees? Mr. Kenneth Miller. Yes. The coordination has to do with the sharing of information, and conferences we are attending, and understanding what others are experiencing, and really trying to understand what tools we can use, what productivity techniques are being used, what experiences people are having. And there is a lot of discussion back and forth on that. There was a conference back, I believe, last May that I believe the Social Security Administration had initiated, and I think that will continue. year 2000 readiness, members' concerns Mr. Wamp. From a policy perspective we may want to have briefings for the Members on this problem as I think a lot of folks don't really understand this problem. I just became aware of it last year, and I am kind of new still. But I think Members need to understand the urgency of this because this is going to sneak up on us a lot faster than most would suspect, and the information technology field is short on manpower right now. I think there is a zero unemployment rate in the whole IT industry nationwide. And there are a few parts of the country that might be pooled together, but I think the average knowledge of people charged with leadership in this country on this issue is limited. That is just my perspective. We may even want to consider setting up some clearing house of information on this issue for Members as it becomes more and more known through the country that this is a problem that the administration and the Congress are both going to share the adverse consequences of if we are not careful. It is pretty bipartisan in nature as we are all going to be blamed because we are stewards of the public trust at this time in history if we don't cure this problem sooner than later. Mr. Kenneth Miller. Well, the sooner versus later is really important and that is that we make as much progress as early as we can, particularly on the higher priority items. And you are right about the resources being strained, because this is probably one of the few problems where the whole industry across the world affecting most systems is going through the same exact situation. So the resource is going to become scarce, and we really do need to keep everyone informed of the progress and the concerns as we go. Mr. Wamp. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Walsh. Any other questions? [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] Question. Describe the role HIR has played in discussions on standardizing electronic files. The Clerk's office has been working on standards that decrease the amount of staff time spent in editing files prior to publication, be it the Congressional Record, or committee bills, hearings, documents, or reports. What role is HIR playing in assuring that the standards will be available and usable in Member and Committee offices? Response. HIR has supported the initiative of the Clerk and the Secretary of the Senate to create a process for the dissemination and collaboration on electronic documents and for the establishment of electronic document formats and standards. HIR's primary role in this area has been to ensure that the technology infrastructure needed for staff and Members to share, change, review, and collaborate on the productive completion of important House documents is in place. The new House communications systems, messaging system, and Web based Intranet (secure House internal Internet) are being implemented to support this type of application. In addition, each House office and Committee now has at least one desktop system capable of performing these documents management tasks when they are available for House use. Once certified as official, these documents will be available for printing or accessible through a search via their Intranet or the Internet. Question. What timetable do you see in achieving standardization? Do you believe Members and Committees will be able to interface with support offices such as the Legislative Counsel and the Clerk in a seamless manner? Will it be possible with new technology to forgo the onerous checking at each stage of the legislative process to make sure ``translation'' from one electronic system to another has not introduced errors? Response. The timetable for standardization will be controlled by the complexity required by the document management systems selected by the Clerk and the Secretary. Because the electronic format for legislative documents will be specified in an international Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), and assuming the translation from the legislative SGML DTD to the HTML (HyperText Markup Language) format familiar to Web browsers in Member and Committee offices, seamless interface to the documents is expected. The master copy will contain additional reference information which offices could obtain through software comparable to that used by the Clerk's office to manage the documents. Onerous checking of documents will be eliminated by getting them correctly marked at the outset in the official version. Avoiding errors in the translations to versions more convenient for all House staff can be ensured by the specification of the DTD since HTML is defined in terms of SGML. [Questions from Ms. Kaptur and responses follow:] Question. There seems to be a policy or informational contradiction with regards to modems and the desire of Members to use PC FAX capabilities. On the one hand, the IG has issued a report warning Members of the high possibility of security compromises with modems in PCs. On the other hand, the House is allowing Members to install modems in PCs in order to use faxing capabilities from PCs. In light of the IG report, has the House developed an official policy when it comes to modems? Response. No, the House has not developed an official policy. The HIR Security function was initiated in February 1996 and was fully staffed per approved levels by June 3, 1996. During its initial year, the HIR Security office had to address over forty 1995 IG audit findings of which the modem issue was identified. Since there were only two existing policies regarding information security (i.e., Internet Security and In- Office Security) HIR Security has essentially had to develop policy from ground zero. The Committee on House Oversight is currently reviewing The United States House of Representatives Information Security Reference Manual 105th Congress. This document comprised of over 100 pages addresses the basics of information security. Modem policy is planned for future inclusion in the policy document, currently pending before CHO. Question. Do we have enough available numbers to accommodate the growing influx of PC modems? Response. HIR Communications considers that with the current trends in growth, there will be enough telephone numbers in the 225 and 226 range to support the needs of the House. If there is an unexpected demand for lines, the House will need to consider the purchase of an additional range of numbers. Question. Have you considered a centralized modem system to minimize the security concerns of the IG? Response. A centralized approach to fax modems was investigated in August 1996. The cost to provide a centralized service of the magnitude purported to be required for supporting the House was in excess of $2 Million. This course of action was deemed imprudent for two reasons: (1) the supporting data was suspicious since the service for the existing fax gateway was not being charged at market rates and therefore not representative of true traffic patterns, and (2) implementation of newer technologies (e.g., fax over the Internet, the House Massaging system, etc.) are expected to further erode the need for the investment in a centralized fax service. Question. Why does the House block the use of UDP as a communication protocol? Is this a security or communication issue, what can be done to resolve these issues to allow access to UDP? Response. It is a security issue--The House's security posture is predicated on a packet filtering scheme and therefore, relies on the use of secure, connection-oriented protocols (i.e., Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)). User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is connection-less and therefore, will travel through our firewall at unexpected points which makes it highly ``spoofable''. Therein lies the security vulnerability. The issue is why is UDP perceived as being needed in the House. UDP supports UNIX Remote Procedure Calls (RPC) or ``r'' family of commands (e.g., rlogin, etc.). This family of commands is extremely dangerous and is prohibited from being used on House systems. Another example of a dangerous UDP supported command is trivial file transfer protocol (TFTP) which permits anyone to logon to a machine without a password. In the current House configuration, the use of the UDP protocol would essentially open up House systems as a ``playground'' for the hacker community. If there is a valid need for the use of this protocol, a proxy setup would be required to provide additional filtering capability. Question. Can you assure other Members and me that our computers are immune from outside entities which may try to alter or destroy documents which reside on our systems? What steps have we taken to address security concerns of the House? Response. HIR Security is working to prevent threats to electronic information but cannot guarantee immunity of Member office systems from external or internal threats. HIR Security has and will continue to build layers of security for Member office systems The following steps have been taken to address the security concerns of the House: A policy text which provides an infrastructure from which to manage the Security program; Perimeter protections in the form of fire walls are in place to isolate the House from the Internet and other agencies on the Capnet backbone; Host protections in the form of security configurations for internal systems; and Continuous self assessments to ensure that policies and controls are in place; The following protections are planned: Full participation in a professional organization which is an international consortium of computer incident response and security teams working together to handle computer security incidents and promote preventive activities which promotes preventive activities; The development of an automated Member office risk analysis program which will enhance the security posture of office systems; and The development of a ``war room'' from which various automated network security analyses and monitoring will be conducted. The goal of network and system monitoring is to have instantaneous notification of security breach attempts. HIR Security will continue to build ``layers'' of security as appropriate to ensure the highest level of protection possible for Member office systems as well as other office and internal systems. Question. At this stage, what grade would you give for the progress being made on the deployment of the Cyer-Congress and FFS projects? Response. There has been major progress in the infrastructure development of the initiative. This progress has been principally in the following areas: 1. Communications--new and improved voice, data, and video systems: Message system to replace the 9 House e-mail systems: Internet, Intranet, and Web architecture and Web sites for House, Member and Committee offices; Repositioning and downsizing the mainframe to an Enterprise server to reflect the decreasing workload and reduce cost; and Establishing the security systems to ensure information security and confidentiality. The legislative, administrative, Member and Committee applications haven't made the same level of progress but with the infrastructure in place, progress in these areas is expected to increase. Overall, the project is probably a ``B''. Question. What further infrastructure improvements does HIR anticipate? Response. The major infrastructure initiative are in place and will be substantially completed during FY 97. Beyond that point, the introduction of new hardware and software features and functions will be researched and where appropriate will become part of a continuing process of incremental improvement that take advantage of price/performance opportunities. Any major infrastructure changes due to technology breakthroughs would have a compelling cost/benefit business case for review. Question. What is the current status of the Exchange deployment? When will the deployment be finished? Response. The deployment of the Microsoft Exchange as the House proprietary e-mail system began in October, 1996. As of February 1, 1997, more than 4,000 House mailboxes have been converted to Exchange. There are 79 House offices scheduled for installation during February and March which will bring that total to approximately 5,500 mailboxes. It is currently anticipated that by mid-summer, all offices selecting Exchange as their e-mail system will be completed. Question. With the deployment of Exchange progressing, has a date been set for unplugging the main frame in which ``softswitch'' currently resides? When will Members and Committees be advised? Response. The plan is to remove ``softswitch'' from the Enterprise server by the end of CY97. The Enterprise server will not be removed because it continues to support many of the House's important operational systems. Members and Committee will be notified in the next few months of the plan to remove ``softswitch''. There will be regular updates throughout the year on that subject including articles in the ``Cyber-Congress Connection''. Question. When does HIR expect to complete the migration of House legacy applications, such as Legis, newswire, and bulletin boards to Web servers? Once this is done, how will Member offices who do not have the technology access the service? Response. There are two elements that must be addressed regarding the migration of legacy systems. They are whether to migrate the application to a new three tier client server Web based platform or some other non MVS based system or to ensure that the application is Year 2000 compliant because the transition to a new platform is not feasible due to time and/or other considerations. All of this work has to be completed including thorough testing in the next 18-30 months. For offices that can't access the Web due primarily to their continued use of a UNIX based CMS system, a freeware system is planned to be available for installation during FY 97 and beyond. It will provide text based Web access via non- intelligent workstations. The number of offices with this type of equipment continues to diminish every month. Question. What should the House do to encourage Member offices which are woefully behind the technology curve to upgrade their computer systems? Response. First, the House should provide those offices with information that clearly demonstrates the benefits of new technology. The House could designate space and funds to set up a model office that makes it easy to demonstrate equipment and services. If the Member can be shown how services such as Exchange, access to the Internet, a Web page, and video conferencing can better allow him/her to serve constituents, little encouragement will be needed. The purchase of hardware and software to accommodate these technologies will be seen as an investment in service to the public rather than an unnecessary expense. Maintenance and support of old technology is expensive and sometimes not available at all. The House should take steps to remove old equipment from the House inventory. The first step of this type occurred with the 105th Congress when the new Members were not able to inherit dumb terminals and 286 PCs. Similar programs should be continued to systematically remove antiquated equipment. Next, the House should provide information and processes that assist the Member in making buying decisions. Continuing programs such as Minimum Technical Standards, and volume buy contracts while providing vendor performance information will allow for educated decision making with some assurance that the investment will not too quickly be outdated. However, Members need to understand that if they wish to continue taking advantage of technology advances, equipment and software purchases are an ongoing expense. Finally, the House must assure that training is available to Members and staff in the use of technology. Training classes must become more position specific so that the application of software and services can be seen in direct relation to successful job performance. Investment should be made in multi- media learning options both for staff in Washington and the district offices. Question. Do you expect to rewire the Rayburn and Longworth Buildings? Response. Yes. The Category 5 and Fiber Wiring Project that was originally part of the FY95 Communications Infrastructure Reprogramming included funding for rewiring portions of these buildings. At present, the Rayburn Building Member Suite rewiring has been engineered, and the first phase of wire installation has begun. It is anticipated that all Rayburn Member suites will be completely rewired by the end of FY97. Engineering for the Longworth rewiring will begin within the next month. A wire installation schedule has not yet been determined. It should be noted that, due to access limitations and the desire to minimize office disruptions, it is anticipated that all the Category 5 and Fiber Wiring will not be ready until the end of FY99. Question. In his testimony, Acting Law Revision Counsel, Mr. Miller, states that he believes HIR cannot provide the needed support for tasks his office performs. Do you believe this is true? If so, why is that? Response. HIR continues to provide the LRC support for the databases that reside on the Entrprise server that are used by the LRC staff and others. HIR also prepares the US Code CD annually. An area where there will be some reduction in HIR support will be the House Law Web site which is a high quality internet Web site that experiences over 2 million hits per month primarily from non House employees. The reason for this reduction in effort is the need to allocate HIR resources to support the growing House needs including the CyberCongress initiative. finance office fte issues Mr. Latham. The major increase, I guess, in the full-time equivalents in the Finance Office, you have 25 additional people. I am just curious as to, I guess, where that number came from or if it is just basically a guess and also, if you have a new system in place, how you justify that large an increase. Mr. Trandahl. Actually, we are still in the process of implementing the new system. The new system isn't totally in place yet. And the number 25 actually was a number that I inherited. There was a reorganization proposal that would have created a net increase of 25 that the previous CAO had submitted up to the Committee on House Oversight, and it was withdrawn because there were multiple concerns including the fact that the background and the analysis of where the true needs were hadn't been fully completed. So I continued with 25 FTEs. Now, we are still in the process internally creating a new plan for the Finance Office. It is truly my hope that we won't end up with a net increase request of 25 positions, but it is where we were previously headed, and we requested it in the budget request. Mr. Latham. You can assure me the next time I go to the airport and give my House--a credit vendor a card to him, and they say your card is no longer any good, and you are standing there going, apparently the House of Representatives is not paying its bills. Mr. Fazio. And you see the police moving in on you. Mr. Latham. Yes. After a long conversation, they finally do. It is embarrassing. Mr. Walsh. It is. child care center Mr. Fazio. Mr. Chairman, I have two brief questions, if you will yield. I apologize. Mr. Walsh. You go right ahead. No need to apologize. Mr. Fazio. What is the status of the day care center? Mr. Trandahl. The day care center, as you know, is currently located in one of our side buildings. There is discussion about relocating the day care center because that is the building that had been identified to be put up for sale. Mr. Fazio. Right. Mr. Trandahl. The House Building Commission has been in the process of evaluating other House space that would be available. I think the recommendation that has been made and the issue that is under discussion is where should the day care center be relocated at this time. I have been providing background and supportive information. Mr. Fazio. There will be no interruption in service, I assume? Mr. Trandahl. That was a guarantee that the Building Commission gave last summer that there would be absolutely no interruption in the service. And, second, we are taking every precaution to ensure that safety considerations and concerns are addressed prior to any action being taken. sale of 501 first street, se, building Mr. Fazio. Where is the sale of the building at the moment, do we know? Mr. Trandahl. I know second or third person, based on what the Building Commission has said to me, but there is a broker and a listing. And that is part of the day care center issue, the broker would much prefer that we have a vacant building to show for sale rather than one that is occupied with a day care center and multiple employees. discussion of cao ``capital'' budget Mr. Fazio. I understand you abandoned the concept of a capital budget that was started in the last year. Would you elaborate? Mr. Trandahl. I don't believe a capital budget was ever really, truly created. There was a fallacy--the CAO appears within the legislative branch as a single line item, and it is made up of multiple things. Some of it is purchases which are House-wide based, you know, backbone systems for the computer to telecommunication switches to--you name it. It has always appeared just as a single dollar amount. We internally within the CAO's organization divide that out and put it out to multiple things. One area was considered a capital budget. Now, I believe my predecessor, in rereading the testimony from the last Congress, created the idea that he was somehow requesting that a separate dollar amount appear in the bill outside the CAO budget. Because that is not the historical process, I have simply put it all back into that single number. Mr. Fazio. Okay. Mr. Trandahl. Okay. food service contract Mr. Serrano. Jim, I have just two or three questions. The food service contract, how is that going, number one. Number two, are we taking into consideration at all the folks with a lot of House service who were hired by this current contractor? Mr. Trandahl. My comment on that would be that we received notification my first week, when I took over as interim CAO, and I believe this has been pretty much read in Roll Call, so notification that they were going to be exiting and they were choosing to provide us a six-month notification that they were going to be leaving, our office has been internally in the process of drafting up a RFP for the competitive processes and things like that. It would be an initiative that would go before the Committee on House Oversight. I would assume that the subcommittee, in working with the Committee on House Oversight, would take up the multiple other issues involved. We would just be administering and writing the contract. random drug testing Mr. Serrano. One last question. On the random drug testing in the House, have you come up with a cost of that operation? Mr. Trandahl. We have not come up with a cost because no one has yet interpreted the rules and come up with what the program needs or determined the desire of the House is in terms of the implementation process. There, again, that is an issue I believe that is pending in the Committee on House Oversight, between Committee on Rules and House Oversight; and they should be formulating plans. We are there to assist in terms of coming up with dollar figures and doing whatever administratively we need to do to assist. Mr. Serrano. So they will basically interpret what the rule is and let you know? Mr. Trandahl. I would think multiple individuals would; but the Committee on House Oversight, I believe, under the rule that was adopted, is given responsibility to establish a program. Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. overtime cost Mr. Walsh. One last question for me, and that is, the House has about a year's experience paying overtime now. What is our annual overtime costs? Do you know what--how much of that is administrative and how much of that is committee staff? Mr. Trandahl. Okay. I can break it out every which way. The total overtime costs for calendar year 1996 was roughly a million dollars. It was $948,449.65. Of that, just looking down the list, MRA account was roughly $300,000, which were--oh, okay. Here is the percentages. I don't have to estimate. Mr. Walsh. So MRA covered about a third of that? Mr. Trandahl. MRA members' individual offices was roughly 28 percent. The House officers, including the IG and the legislative counsel, made up roughly 50 percent of the House overtime costs. Now, I would attribute the costs here basically to implementation of the Congressional Accountability Act, effective January 23rd, 1996. Early in the process, people took very conservative action in terms of who they paid overtime to, because we were still in the process of understanding legally the implications as well as the requirements as to who was exempt and who was not exempt under fair labor standards. I think that if you looked over the year you would see that it would actually have fallen, because we would understand that more people would not be legally required to be paid overtime because they would be professionally exempt. Mr. Walsh. So that the trend was downward in terms of the impact of that change in the law on budgets? [A question from Mr. Walsh and response follow:] Question. The House has over a year's experience paying overtime to our non-exempt staff. What is our annual overtime cost? How much of that is administrative staff, members staff; committee staff? (Details for the record) Response. The information follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CY 1996 Percent to Category actual subtotal ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Administrative.................................. $548,592 57.84 Member.......................................... 287,343 30.30 Committee....................................... 112,515 11.86 ----------------------- Subtotal.................................. 948,450 .......... Benefits........................................ 61,934 .......... ----------------------- Total..................................... 1,010,383 .......... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Administrative category primarily includes the Clerk of the House, Chief Administrative Officer of the House, Inspector General and Legislative Counsel. The Committee category includes all House Committees. The Member category includes staff employed by Members of Congress. Overtime costs also impact the Government Contributions (benefits) account for Medicare and Social Security (FICA). An estimated 6.53% has been used to complete the overtime costs to the House. The Medicare contribution (1.45%) and 82% of the FICA contribution (6.2% .82=5.08%) total the 6.53% total percentage being used. The FICA portion was prorated based upon 82% of the employment population participating in the FERS retirement program. Those participating in the CSRS program are not required to contribute to FICA. [Questions from Ms. Kaptur and response follow:] Question. During last year Subcommittee hearings, the former CAO stated there was no way of estimating how much the Congressional Accountability Act would cost Congress. Looking at the budget request this year, how much would you say is for implementation of the Congressional Accountability Act? Response. There is still no way to estimate the total cost to the House for implementation of the Congressional Accountability Act. There has been substantial time spent by staff in Member offices, Committees, Leadership and administrative support offices developing necessary policies and procedures to comply. There has also been substantial time spent in responding to actions brought in the Office of Compliance. The Office of Employment Counsel was set up and staffed. Funds totaling $257,000 are requested in the Fiscal Year 1998 House bill for the new Office of American with Disabilities which began operations at the beginning of 1997. This office was approved by the Committee on House Oversight on a provisional basis until further direction. Funds totaling $70,000 are requested in the Chief Administrative Officer's budget request to begin and maintain a safety and medical program as required under the guidelines of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA). The effective date of this Act to the Congress was January 1, 1997. Question. Has an inspection of the Capitol grounds taken place in order to comply with the work safety standards set in the Congressional Accountability Act? If so, have the violations been addressed? Will there be a report issued to document all the violations found? Response. The CAO is not responsible for the inspection of the Capitol grounds and therefore is unable to respond to this question. overtime within the cao's budget Mr. Trandahl. Yes, it was. And I believe as well that you will find in the FY 1998 request in front of you that roughly $318,000 is requested. Most people are actually looking to just simply absorb it within their existing budgets. Mr. Walsh. Good. Any other questions? All right. Thank you, Mr. Miller. office of the inspector general Mr. Trandahl. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Inspector General be called to the table. Mr. Walsh. Welcome, Mr. Lainhart. Mr. Lainhart. Thank you very much. Mr. Trandahl. The Office of the Inspector General. For salaries and expenses for the Office of the Inspector General, $4,344,000 is requested. Included in this request is $1,763,000 for personnel and $2,581,000 for nonpersonnel items. This request is an increase of $390,000 above the amount enacted in the FY 1997 appropriation bill. At this time, I would introduce John Lainhart, the Inspector General, to testify on his FY 1998 budget request in its entirety. I would ask that after his testimony the following table on page 41 be inserted into the record. Mr. Walsh. Without objection. Welcome, Mr. Lainhart. We believe we have your prepared remarks, and if you would like to make a brief statement we will then open it up to questions. 104th congress audit accomplishments Mr. Lainhart. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Walsh, Congressman Serrano and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today. I would like to very briefly highlight the accomplishments of the OIG during the 104th Congress. During the 104th Congress, the OIG issued 42 audit reports accounting for over $22 million in potential savings and identifying numerous material internal control weaknesses. Last year we issued three audit reports on the new accounting system being implemented in the Finance Office that accounted for nine findings and 39 recommendations. At the committee's request, we also looked at the new computer center where the accounting system is being processed--the Geological Survey's Reston computer center. We identified 42 significant information systems integrity weaknesses and made 72 recommendations with respect to those weaknesses. As mentioned earlier, we also looked at the three House officers to see how their operations worked during the 104th Congress. We also completed three major investigations, two of which involved significant procurement irregularities. goals of the 1997 audit plan And in looking at our next year and continuing years of operations, we have identified the fact that our workload continues to grow. Our proposed 1997 annual audit plan and perpetual inventory together account for 76 audits, an increase of 19 audits and some 1,300 staff days of effort. As Jeff indicated, we are asking for total funding of $4.344 million. Included in this is a request for an increase of $201,000 for four additional OIG nonsupervisory audit positions. These positions are needed because of sporadic and unpredictable increases in our investigative and contract audit workloads. This has caused significant delays in, or suspensions of, ongoing audits. I think if you look at it, the OIG's 19 FTEs and a little over $4 million in funding to audit the financial and administrative activities of the Sergeant at Arms, Clerk and CAO, operations that total approximately 1,000 FTEs and $74 million in funding for FY 1997--and protect total House FY 1997 funding of $683 million, you will see that we are a pretty good investment for the House of Representatives. So, with that, I will conclude my opening statement and submit my formal statement for the record and will be glad to answer any questions you might have at this time. Mr. Walsh. Thank you. [The information follows:] [Pages 115 - 123--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] inspector general reports Mr. Walsh. These reports that you have produced, are they all on record with this subcommittee? Mr. Lainhart. Yes, sir, every one. Mr. Walsh. Do you do that as a matter of course? Mr. Lainhart. Yes, sir. inspector general's assessment of financial management system Mr. Walsh. The financial management system was mentioned earlier on. Could you give us your assessment of that system that is being implemented? I asked the CAO, the acting CAO--I want to make that clear, Jeff--if he thought we were putting good money after bad, and he said, no. I would like to put the same question to you. Mr. Lainhart. Well, I will start off with that and then explain the status. I don't think that we are putting good money after bad. I think the system that we had before this one was being implemented was very much deficient. There were internal control weaknesses. There were major accounting weaknesses. It wouldn't stand up to scrutiny by anybody--in comparison to private industry or any other Federal agency for that matter. So I think we definitely needed to move in this direction. And like Jeff indicated earlier, we are moving in that direction. The new financial management system was mandated on August 3, 1995, by the House Oversight Committee. As a result, the Chief Administrative Officer entered into a cross-servicing agreement with the Geological Survey to implement their Federal Financial System, which is an off-the-shelf software package. implementaiton of financial management system Full implementation was scheduled to occur in four phases. The first phase was completed September the 30th, and it involved identifying and setting up the functionality of the new system to support the House. Phase 2, which is still not complete, includes establishing and implementing the core FFS system, custom interfaces and custom reports for the House. We are very close to getting to the completion of that phase. It has been slipping on us a bit, and that was a concern that we raised in our audit reports near the end of last year. In addition, there are phases 3 and 4 that really have not been defined yet. However, the Office of Procurement and Purchasing began implementation of Procurement Desktop, which was parallel to the implementation of the core FFS, and this has generally been considered part of phase 3. So some of phase 3 is being done separately. delays in implementation As described in our December 23rd, 1996, report, ``The House Struggles With The Management Of The New Financial Management System,'' phase 2 isn't complete because the Office of Finance Management hasn't provided sufficient resources to perform the day-to-day operational tasks required of the new system and to complete the remaining phase 2 implementation tasks. Jeff referred to this earlier, and that is why the request for the additional staff is included in the budget. Discussion on Finance Staffing Mr. Walsh. Excuse me. On the staffing levels, Jeff said--I believe he said he inherited the 25 FTE figure. In your mind, did you--or otherwise did you determine what you felt was an adequate need in terms of FTEs? Mr. Lainhart. We didn't look at it from that perspective. We certainly knew that certain functions didn't have enough in the way of resources. For example, when the requests were being put together, I believe the Director of Financial Systems position hadn't been approved by the House Oversight Committee. That position is key to the implementation of the new system, somebody to head the implementation effort; and that position has just been recently advertised. So that certainly is one of the positions that was needed. So we looked at the CAO's request in that perspective. Certain key areas needed to be reinforced within the office, that being the major one. audit concerns with financial management system Mr. Lainhart. When the system was being brought before the House Oversight Committee for approval to be implemented, that was back on June 4, 1996, there were six items that still had to be completed for phase 2. Unfortunately, those still to this day remain to be completed. They deal with the reconciliation and correction of errors from conversion of the old system to the new system; modification and associated training of custom interface programs, such as the General Services Administration district office lease billing system; development of operating policies and procedures for the interfaces; establishment of a user support program to resolve user questions and problems, development of user procedures and training for these subsystems; and then, finally, the execution of systems acceptance testing for year-end closing processes. In addition, FFS has incurred operational problems as we reported in one of our other reports. There is normally the traditional backlog that is experienced with implementing a new system and the operational problems. Jeff already referred to those. probable solutions to audit concerns Mr. Lainhart. These problems can be anticipated and alleviated by assigning additional temporary resources. Unfortunately, that wasn't done when the system was being brought up. Management in the Finance Office didn't make the additional resources available, and the FFS team was understaffed throughout the implementation process and overburdened with additional work and really up against the wall. As a result, many of the phase 2 tasks couldn't be completed as planned, which negatively impacted on user confidence with the new system and the trust in the new system that Members and staff have. common legislative branch financial management system Mr. Walsh. This financial management system, will this encompass the entire legislative branch budget? Mr. Lainhart. No. This is just the House. Mr. Walsh. Just the House? Mr. Lainhart. Just the House. Mr. Walsh. Does it make sense to put everybody into the system if that sort of effort is ongoing, and it seems to be, that we are headed in the right direction? Mr. Lainhart. Well, one of the issues that Jeff alluded to earlier was that this is an interim solution and that ultimately we are looking for a new system, and I would suggest one system for the entire legislative branch of the government. I think that is definitely the right way to go. We can save through economies of scale and through proper implementation of a system using a system development life cycle methodology--unfortunately, we had to cut some corners this time. We can save on procurement and maintenance, enhancements and upgrades, operations, development of accounting policies and procedures, training and security by having one system for the entire legislative branch. So these economies certainly would support the establishment of one system for the entire legislative branch. Mr. Walsh. Okay. Mr. Serrano. Mr. Serrano. I have no questions. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Wamp? Mr. Latham? Mr. Wamp. No. Mr. Latham. No. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Fazio. [A question from Chairman Walsh and response follows:] Question. What needs to be done to move us toward the goal of a common financial management system? Response. The Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council, which is an informal forum for Legislative Branch financial managers, has already been established. The Council has also established and documented a charter and a high level statement of vision, goals, and strategies. This is an excellent first step. I believe that this group should be formally tasked with developing a plan to implement an integrated financial management system for the Legislative Branch. To be successful the Council needs to adopt a system development life cycle approach which would initially entail: Developing a needs statement which describes the users' financial management system requirements; Conducting a feasibility study which would identify and explore alternative approaches for implementing an integrated financial management system; Conducting a risk analysis to identify internal control and security vulnerabilities; Conducting a cost-benefit analysis to determine the most cost- beneficial solution, and based on the results of this analysis, recommending going ahead with the best approach; Developing a project plan which would specify the strategy, goals, activities, and resources for all phases and sub-phases of the development effort; and Preparing a functional requirements document which would provide the basis for the mutual understanding between users and designers of the required financial management system. inspector general's audit activities Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say, John, I think you have really made a positive impact on the institution. I think all of those people who, in both parties, thought it was important to have an Inspector General should be heartened by the way in which you have performed, without any fanfare or penchant for publicity, in fact, just the opposite. Mr. Lainhart. Thank you. Mr. Fazio. We have done a lot of good, and I think objectively people can follow your blueprint to make improvements in most of the operations we are engaged in here. The one thing I have heard, and it is not unusual--you hear it about the GAO coming in--it is time consuming for elements of the legislative branch to work with your people as you go through your audits. I think HIR is a good example of people who found at times that perhaps that they were being diverted from their normal course of business to some degree; and this, of course, is an irritant. You understand the banks don't like the various regulatory agencies in their way. It is endemic. But what are you doing to be as unobtrusive as possible and as, I guess, unburdensome as possible as it relates to the time you require the agencies to spend working with you? Mr. Lainhart. Well, without any question, since the House had never been audited before, and especially HIR, I think there is valid concern that we are in there a lot. I think that is just the nature of the beast, if you will, in that organizations that haven't been looked at demand additional looks at them to see how they are operating. I can give you one specific example of how we tried to be unobtrusive. We started an HIR management audit in December, and when we initiated that audit one of the key areas that we wanted to look at was Susan Zeleniak's area with the technical service representatives. She made the point that the moves with the new Members were going to be occurring during the initial time period of our audit, and asked if we could hold off on interviewing her and her staff until a later time. We were very willing to accommodate, and we did accommodate her request. So we try to do that as much as we can. Mr. Fazio. In some cases, people who have been unaudited just are going to find this perhaps a greater irritant than others who are used to the process. Would you estimate that we are going to have additional personnel needs because we go through annual audits? Mr. Lainhart. No, I don't think you do. Audits are part of business in the executive branch and private industry; and unfortunately it was, if you will, a culture shock here. You might ask this of Jeff, who has seen it from both sides, from both the Clerk's Office as well as the CAO's office now. Hopefully, since audits are more ingrained and more expected now, we will see some leveling off of staff anxieties and not as much concern, if you will, on the staff's part. inspector general's concurrence with finance staffing Mr. Fazio. In terms of the CAO's budget, I gather you feel their submission pretty much ratifies the concerns you expressed in the past. Do you essentially support their personnel requests and perhaps imply even that we may need more? Mr. Lainhart. We haven't looked at the CAO's budget in detail. However, in the finance area we certainly did look at what the CAO was putting together--when the prior CAO was putting together his package and definitely felt that there were some additional resources needed. As Jeff indicated, I also see where there are some trade- offs in that maybe Finance goes up and some of the other CAO activities would go down. So I don't necessarily see that overall within the CAO there would necessarily be increases. But I really personally believe that in the Finance Office, since they cut a number of positions with the beginning of the 104th Congress--I think they overdid the cuts and didn't have enough resources to really support the activities--and I think that we have got to build some of those positions back up. Mr. Fazio. Yet we really didn't want to admit that in order to fix the problem. Mr. Lainhart. Well, yes, the Oversight Committee asked routinely in FFS Steering Committee meetings and in meetings of the committee whether additional resources were necessary, and up until the last month under the prior CAO, the answer was always no. Finally, I think last November, we heard that there were resources that were needed. Mr. Fazio. Is it possible that you would be able to recommend to Jeff or his successor areas where we can make reductions in the CAO's FTEs in order to compensate to some degree for the increases? Mr. Lainhart. Yes, be glad to do that. Mr. Fazio. Would that be part of your ongoing audit responsibility of the CAO issue? Mr. Lainhart. Yes, sir. preliminary recommendations on ffs staffing Mr. Fazio. And you could report that back to the committee perhaps even before the completion of your audit? Would it be possible that would help us before we finish our work on marking up the bill? Mr. Lainhart. Well, the Chairman has already asked me to look at the H.I.R. budget item. So, yes, we will be glad to do that. Mr. Fazio. I appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Lainhart. Yes, sir. Mr. Latham. Do you have any preliminary recommendations or any ideas right now as to where you would go in that regard? Mr. Lainhart. No, I really haven't started looking at it yet. I just got the request today. So we will start now. Mr. Latham. Okay. Mr. Walsh. Are there any other questions of Mr. Lainhart? If not, thank you very much, sir. Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. Oh, I am sorry. I would like to recognize--Ms. Kaptur has joined us. Welcome, Marcy. Good to have you with us. inspector general staffing Ms. Kaptur. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I had a conflict, and I couldn't get here any sooner. I just wanted to welcome Mr. Lainhart. I am a new member of this subcommittee and very proud to be and look forward to working with you. I did have just a couple of brief questions. One concerns the total number of--and it may be in the documentation. I just haven't seen it. What is your total staff full-time equivalency at this point? Mr. Lainhart. We have 19 currently. Ms. Kaptur. Okay. Does that include what you call nonsupervisory positions? Mr. Lainhart. That is our entire staff, yes, ma'am, it includes nonsupervisory positions. Ms. Kaptur. So you would be looking to increase by four positions which would bring you up to 23? Mr. Lainhart. That is correct. computer security Ms. Kaptur. I also wanted to ask in one of the areas you mentioned in your testimony that you are concerned about is the unauthorized--poor security over access to computer systems. And you are talking about Members' offices as well as committee offices? Mr. Lainhart. Committees, Members, the House officers, the whole House, yes. Ms. Kaptur. Could you elaborate on that just a little? Mr. Lainhart. We have issued a number of reports in the last two years where we have identified security weaknesses. We issued reports that have confidential portions to them so there is a lot of detail in the reports for corrective action. For example, in one case last year we were able to penetrate a Member's CMS system, correspondence management system, and actually change a Member's position in a piece of correspondence from supporting an issue to not supporting an issue. Mr. Serrano. That cost me a lot of votes, you know. Mr. Lainhart. We did not make the change, though. Mr. Walsh. That is good to know. Members do that all the time. internet and financial management security Mr. Lainhart. And we have also been able to access systems and send electronic e-mail, as if we were the Member, to my office just to demonstrate the fact that it can be done. So we have identified a number of problems. Ken Miller in the HIR organization has hired a security officer who is doing an outstanding job and moving by leaps and bounds to correct these problems. We also identified significant problems, as I indicated earlier, in the Geological Survey system where we are actually processing the House's Federal Financial Management system, and they have made major improvements. We penetrated their system as well, and they took the corrective action--actually, before we went live with the new system, I should add. So there is a lot of movement to correct security weaknesses in both places. [A question from Ms. Kaptur and response follow:] Question. In the last two years, have there been any systems compromise via the Internet or through the backbone. If so, can you give us a detailed account of the situation. Response. Since being established in February 1996, the HIR Security office has not investigated nor been aware of any systems compromises via the Internet. There have been numerous problems and investigations associated with e-mail for which there are no viable alternatives for mitigation or elimination other than complete dissolution of the use of electronic mail. donation of computers Ms. Kaptur. Is there any information that you might be able to provide me and my staff? I would really be interested in that area. I also wanted to mention, either to yourself or I guess the Chief Administrative Officer, the Senate has a program where they are able to donate used computers to schools, and it is my understanding that in the House we are not able to do that. I wondered, Mr. Chairman, if someone might be able to comment on that, whether we need legislation to do that. I think Senator Murray offered an amendment in the Senate. Mr. Trandahl. If it is okay, Mr. Chairman, I could provide information. Mr. Walsh. Just consulting with the clerk, House Oversight, to our knowledge, has authorized HIR to provide used equipment to schools. I am not sure what the process is. Jeff. Mr. Trandahl. How about if we look into that and provide background for the record for you? Ms. Kaptur. We tried to go into that, but there was a problem. Mr. Trandahl. There have been multiple efforts through the years, and the Frost Commission is something that comes automatically to mind to me where Congressman Frost was working to donate supplemental House equipment to emerging democracies in Eastern Europe. I believe all of those demonstration projects have ceased at this point, but I will go back, and I will find out more information, and I will find out where we stand. [A question from Ms. Kaptur and response follow:] Question. What is the current policy for donating old computers from the District office? Washington office? Where do the excess computers which do not meet the minimum technical standards go? I am curious because schools in my district, at every level, would appreciate some of the computers which we are currently discarding. Does the House have an overall policy addressing this issue? Response. Disposition of used equipment of the House is governed by 2 USC 117e. This law, which was adopted in 1986 and amended several times, the last in 1996, provides that the Chief Administrative Officer may dispose of used equipment through trade-in or sale, directly or through the General Services Administration (GSA). If the CAO determines that disposition is not feasible because of age, location, condition, or any other relevant factor, which would result in a loss to the Government, then the CAO may donate that equipment to State or local Government or to a 501(c)(3) charity. All House computer equipment wherever located is controlled through Office Systems Management, one of the offices of the Chief Administrative Officer. If a Member determines that the computer equipment in his/her office no longer meets the needs of the office (and he/she has met their purchase obligations), then the equipment is returned to OSM. It may be traded to the vendor supplying replacement equipment to that Member or it may be held in inventory for use by another Member for whom it is suitable. If the item is not needed by the House at all, then OSM declares it surplus. All surplus computer equipment located in Washington, DC is transferred to GSA for their disposition. The situation is different in district offices because GSA does not have facilities convenient to all Districts for disposal of equipment from the House. If a Member decides that computer equipment in a District office no longer meets the needs of the office, then OSM requests GSA to take the equipment. If GSA does not agree, then OSM makes a determination, based on the age and location of the equipment, that it would be a loss to the Government to retain or try to sell it and authorizes the Member to make a contribution of the equipment to charity. The Member is required to report to OSM information concerning the equipment and the charity. If the Member does not want to give the equipment to charity, then OSM requires GSA to dispose of the equipment. house staff benefits Ms. Kaptur. We appreciate that. My final question--again, I don't know if you are looking into this or not. Since becoming a Member, when I look at some of the support staff that have served Members in this Congress over the years, particularly I am thinking about many immigrant women who serve in positions here on the Hill, and I have been very concerned about their pension equity, their benefits and whether they have been treated fairly in terms of their retirement. I am wondering if you have done any studies, particularly looking at people that may be working in the barber shop, the salons that serve both Members and the public, in terms of the manner--are people being treated equitably in terms of their-- and I am not talking about just this year but under their historic record of employment. Is there something you can provide me with or give me a briefing on this for people who serve in support positions on the Hill? Mr. Lainhart. We do have in our proposed audit plan--that is being submitted next week to the Committee on House Oversight--a proposed House-wide audit that would include benefits. So I think we get into those issues. Ms. Kaptur. I would like to ask that you speak to my staff privately about some of the concerns I have had for a long time about the inequitable treatment of some of these employees. And my perceptions may be totally incorrect, but I would like to make sure everyone is treated fairly and therefore, you know, would very much appreciate speaking with someone if you are going to be getting into that. Mr. Lainhart. I will give you a call. Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. introduction of new subcommittee member Mr. Walsh. Let me just say I am delighted to have you with me on this committee. We have been together on Agriculture, District of Columbia---- Ms. Kaptur. Yes. Mr. Walsh [continuing]. And hopefully Legislative will be as fruitful. Ms. Kaptur. We are learning a lot. Mr. Walsh. Yes, we are, every day. further comments on donation of computers Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, if I may, the donating of computers was an issue that we brought up at the last meeting of the last session; and that is an area that we really should continue to look at because we have this turnover in technology every so often--we are having it now in many of the offices-- and it is at times not clear if the House is getting the best possible deal in the way we just turn this equipment over again. The whole idea of going to emerging countries is fine, but certainly many communities in this country are in need of this technology. A certain piece of equipment may be a year too old for us, for what we want to do but certainly in 99 percent of the places throughout the nation it is a very good piece of equipment, a very modern piece of equipment that could be used properly. comments on hiring practices Mr. Serrano. And one just almost dangerous comment, but what Ms. Kaptur brings up about the treatment of people may open up a wider discussion some day as to the hiring practices of the House and whether indeed the House reflects the makeup of this country, not only in gender and race and ethnicity. This is something that we should be very aware of as we move to make this a better institution. I think we have to look at all possibilities of making it a better institution. Mr. Walsh. Are there any other questions or comments, Mr. Lainhart? If not, thank you very much, sir. [Questions from Ms. Kaptur and responses follow:] Question. Last year, there seemed to be some friction between you and the former CAO regarding your evaluation of the Federal Financial System (FFS). Have you and the current CAO come to some consensus regarding this project? Response. Last year we issued the following audits related to the implementation of FFS. House Experiencing Problems With The Implementation Of The Core Federal Financial System (Report No. 96-CAO-02, March 1, 1996); The House Is Ready To Implement The Core Federal Financial System (Report No. 96-CAO-04, June 3, 1996); The House Struggles With The Management Of The New Financial Management System (Report No. 96-CAO-12, December 23, 1996). Each of these reports identified management problems dealing with the implementation of FFS. Under the Former CAO, while some of the recommendations in these reports were implemented, many of the key recommendations were either not addressed or not implemented in a timely fashion, which exacerbated the FFS implementation problems. The current Acting CAO has agreed to all of our recommendations and is taking aggressive action to implement them. We are continuing to work in an advisory capacity with the Acting CAO through the FFS Steering Committee and daily meetings with his staff. For example, we are currently working closely with the Office of Finance in identify and developing a complete and detailed task list for completing the implementation of the Core FFS and future tasks with level of effort estimates for each task and the associated costs. Thus, I definitely believe that we have consensus with the CAO, and we are both working in a totally cooperative manner to complete implementation of the Core FFS and further improve financial management within the House. Question. Of the 42 audits which were conducted, how many in your opinion have resulted in changes in House practices? Response. Without a doubt all of the 42 audits issued in the 104th Congress have resulted or will result in some change in House practices. Recommendations contained in these 42 audits have, without exception, received the auditees' full concurrence. As of December 1996, we have reviewed the status of 300 audit recommendations contained in the 31 audit reports issued through June 1996. Based on this review, auditees have fully implemented 166 recommendations (55 percent), and partially implemented 85 recommendations (28 percent). No action has been taken on the remaining 49 recommendations (16%). Recommendations where no action has been taken are typically where, although the auditee has agreed with the recommendation, the time frame for its implementation has expired. For example, the former CAO had agreed to develop a contingency/disaster recovery plan for Member Services' payroll operations to ensure that the payroll system would continue to operate in the event of a disaster. Although this recovery plan was to be developed by mid July 1996, as of December 1996, no action had been taken. Question. Your office performed 42 audits in the 104th Congress, in your testimony, you state in Calendar Year 1997 there's a need for 47 audits. What areas will you be looking at during this Congress? Response. Our Perpetual Inventory of Proposed Audits includes 47 audits. However, these audits will be considered for initiation later in Calendar Year (CY) 1997 or in future years, should resources become available. It is the 29 audits included in our 1997 Annual Audit Plan (AAP) that we plan to start during CY 1997. These are the audits that we consider to be of the highest priority, and include the CY 1996 Financial Audit of the House, 16 financial and performance audits, and 12 information systems audits. Of these 29 audits 22, or 76 percent, are within the CAO's area of responsibility. Audit efforts to accomplish these 22 CAO audits will primarily focus on the Office of Finance (7), Media Services (7), House Information Resources (6), and Human Resources (2). Question. What happens to the unexpended balances that are not expended by the end of the fiscal year by Member, Leadership, administrative offices within the House? Response. Pursuant to section 102a of Title 2 of the United States Code, the unexpended balances of appropriations for a fiscal year remain available for two years following the closing of each fiscal year. This allows the House to pay outstanding obligations with funds from the fiscal year in which the obligation occurred. At the end of this two year period, any remaining funds are surplused to Treasury via a Treasury surplus warrant and the ``books'' are officially closed. Office of the Attending Physician Mr. Walsh. Another area that we have oversight for is the Office of the Attending Physician. Given his responsibilities of an emergency nature and otherwise, I would like to just introduce Admiral John Eisold briefly and have him come up and say hello; and we will turn him loose as quickly as we can. Welcome, Doctor. Dr. Eisold. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. Good to have you with us. Dr. Eisold. Glad to be here. Mr. Walsh. If you would like to make a comment for the subcommittee, feel free. If not, we will give everybody an opportunity to say hello to you, and then we will send you back where you came from. Dr. Eisold. We have submitted all of our material in written form, and I really offer myself just to answer questions if you have any. Mr. Walsh. Well, it is my understanding, our understanding, that you have responsibility for the medical care for the pages, emergency care, immunization for Capitol Police--I wasn't aware of this--emergency care for millions of visitors who tour the complex as well as Members and staff for the House and Senate. Dr. Eisold. Yes, sir. Mr. Walsh. That is a pretty good workload. Dr. Eisold. Well, it encompasses a broad spectrum of primary care, as you point out, and emergency care, as well as the preparation for events like this evening where we expand our care and our resources so that we are prepared for different contingencies that might come up when you have a collection of people like those who will be here tonight or other joint sessions. Additionally, we take responsibility to make sure that the air you breath and the water you drink and the food you eat is up to standards. And I think that that encompasses, really, the mission we have in terms of promoting the health and safety on the Hill. house drinking water safety concerns Mr. Walsh. Now that I have moved my office from the Longworth Building to the Rayburn Building, can I drink the water? Dr. Eisold. Yes. Mr. Latham. How about Cannon? Mr. Walsh. I am told--yes, how about Cannon? I am told the lead content in the water is such that we shouldn't be drinking it. We should be drinking bottled water, is that true? Dr. Eisold. We can certainly look into that with our environmental health specialist. He samples the water, and if at any given time there is an indication that it exceeds a limit, then that warning will be given out. Of course, that can vary from week to week or time to time. But he is on a regular schedule of testing. Mr. Walsh. I would suspect in a building as old as the Capitol there must be a lot of lead joints on copper pipes around the building. I don't know if that poses a problem. Dr. Eisold. Yes, there can be, and as I say, it's under constant surveillance. An old building like the Capitol does pose those sorts of problems, but at any given time different areas are refurbished and so that what was a problem at one time may not be at a future time. Mr. Walsh. Fair enough. Are there any other questions? other health concerns Mr. Serrano. Just a follow-up on that. Because Mr. Walsh and I share the same concern, not only about the water, but about the air we breathe, and because we have not just Members but so many staff members who work here, when you refurbish an area, doesn't that run the risk of stirring up other problems that may be in there? I mean, do we have an asbestos problem in these buildings? Dr. Eisold. I can't identify specifically what all the risks are, but when projects are undertaken there is always a chance for those sorts of environmental contaminants to get stirred up. And that is why, again, our environmental health specialist will do a survey and help the workers with regard to proper ventilation, adjusting the ducts, which is a complex operation and requires some study, and if necessary, putting in proper fans or proper enclosures and ensuring that the safety of the workers is looked after as well as the people that are working in the building. And along those lines, workers that are at high risk for such exposures in the day-to-day operations are under a medical surveillance program, again, run out of the environmental health specialist's office with a specific occupational health nurse to put people on a surveillance and try to identify those who would be at risk for lead exposure respiratory concerns, et cetera. Mr. Walsh. Anything? Mr. Latham. I would like to say, I think the first time I met the doctor was up on top of the dome, and you were doing a run-through of what would happen if someone were to collapse doing a dome tour up there. I was nearly ready to be your first patient at that time myself. It was a very hot day. But I appreciate very much your readiness and what you do. Dr. Eisold. Yes, sir. Mr. Walsh. His prescription for vertigo. That is what I feel when I go up there. Dr. Eisold. It does happen. Unfortunately, with the high ceilings or the problem people have with heights, that is always a problem. There really is not anything except avoidance to try and counteract that, or having somebody nearby to prop you up. The worst thing that can happen is to fall. And as you can imagine, there are many elderly tourists in the Capitol or on the stairs that hit the marble floor with a great thud and so we have seen our fair share of people from time to time. It is a risk. There is no doubt about it. care for general public Mr. Fazio. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I think people need to understand the degree to which this office assists the general public. Can you give us any information as to the degree to which that occurs? Dr. Eisold. Well, we respond to several hundred emergency calls each year and as you are aware, we are the 911 for the geographical boundaries of Capitol Hill because we can get into places much more quickly than the resources in the city. And approximately 98 percent of those calls are nonmember related. And 47 percent are usually staff and 47 percent are related to visitors, and as you can imagine with 7 million visitors, just the statistics alone dictate that somebody is going to have a heart attack, somebody is going to have a seizure, somebody is going to fall. And certainly some of our responses vary seasonally, taking care of small church choirs in the middle of the summer that have been singing too long on the Capitol steps and likewise people who are exposed out in the winter cold waiting to get into the building. But we take great pride in that. We are pleased to be able to provide that service. emergency medical services Mr. Fazio. I know at times you supplement the D.C. emergency services when you can get people to a hospital room or to emergency care faster. Dr. Eisold. We don't necessarily think of it as supplementing them, but occasionally if we do need to transfer somebody, ordinarily we would like to have D.C. Fire and Rescue make that transfer so that we are still available here to respond to another emergency. But if the clinical situation dictates or there is a delay or we just need to move, we have taken whomever it may be to the hospital if the clinical situation dictates. Mr. Fazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. Doctor, thank you very much. It is good to have you with us. Dr. Eisold. Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. Serrano. I feel better already. Mr. Latham. How do we look? Dr. Eisold. You look healthy and ready for the 105th. Mr. Walsh. Jeff. office of the chaplain Mr. Trandahl. Mr. Chairman, the Office of the Chaplin, for the Office of the Chaplin $126,000, and I would ask that the balance of page 42 be inserted into the record. [The information follows:] [Page 137--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Without objection. office of the parliamentarian Mr. Trandahl. The Office of the Parliamentarian. For salaries and expenses for the Office of the Parliamentarian, including the Parliamentarian, Compilation of the Precedents and $2,000 for preparing the Digest of Rules, $1,129,000 is requested. Included in this request is $1,028,000 for personnel and $101,000 for nonpersonnel related items. This request is an increase of $93,000 over the amount enacted in the FY 1997 appropriation bill. Mr. Chairman, for your information, the combined table, as well as separate tables showing the actual and estimated appropriations are provided, and I would ask that the balance of pages 43 and 44 be inserted into the record. [The information follows:] [Pages 139 - 140--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] office of the law revision counsel Mr. Trandahl. For the Office of Law Revision Counsel, for salaries and expenses of the Office of Law Revision Counsel, $1,881,000 is requested. Included in this request is $1,667,000 for personnel and $214,000 for nonpersonnel related expenses. This request is an increase of $114,000 above the amount enacted in the FY 1997 appropriation bill. additional ftes Mr. Chairman, this office is requesting two additional FTE based on the need for entry level assistant counsels at editor positions which are needed for current production and future development. At this time, I would introduce Mr. John Miller, the acting Law Revision Counsel, to testify on behalf of the FY 1998 request. Mr. John Miller. Thank you. Mr. Trandahl. And I would ask at the end of his statement the table on page 45 be inserted into the record. Mr. Walsh. Without objection. Mr. Miller, welcome. It is good to have you with us today. We will place your statement in the record. And since we are running short on time, if you would like to make a brief statement, feel free. Otherwise, we will have a couple of questions to ask you. Mr. John Miller. Well, I think my written statement and the letter of Mr. Willett requesting the positions originally pretty well cover our positions. I think it is well detailed and I will be glad to answer any questions that you may have. [The information follows:] [Pages 142 - 144--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] internet access to electronic u.s. code Mr. Walsh. All right. Thank you. Just one. The U.S. Code is now available through the Internet, and Thomas, as I understand it. Is that correct? Mr. John Miller. Yes, sir, it is. Mr. Walsh. Is your office responsible for updating that? Mr. John Miller. Yes. We provide the tapes that are used for updating both the GPO Access, which can be accessed through Thomas, and also our Web site. Mr. Walsh. How often is that updated? Mr. John Miller. Well, it depends. This time of year, when legislation is not being passed, not very frequently. The policy of our office has been over the past couple of years, that when a tape is prepared for printing a volume of the code and the okay is given to print, then that tape is made available for updating the on-line data services. In addition, the data bases continue to be kept up to date by daily updating which affords the users the text of a section that is current, or at least the latest available text of the section, plus a citation, to any later amendments or repeals to that section. So to the extent that the user can find out the status of a section, it would be updated as soon as the information is available, usually within a day or two after the President signs legislation. Mr. Walsh. This information has obvious value. The people that use it the most, I would assume, are attorneys interpreting the law? Mr. John Miller. I think it is certainly the attorneys. We get a lot of input from attorneys who are glad to have this service available at low cost compared to the commercial services that are available and which are probably too expensive for a lot of small firms to afford. possible reduction in u.s. code printing costs Mr. Walsh. As a matter of fact, we, for years, have printed the U.S. Code. Of course, you have to update the Code and go through new printings and so on. And I had an unusual experience. We have a book of the U.S. Code, and traditionally--I guess it is traditionally--Members have offered that to individuals, if they didn't have a use for it. We couldn't find anybody who wanted it because they would get it all on-line. And I just wondered if you would know what sort of a budget, or maybe Jeff or maybe someone else would know, what sort of a budget there is for printing the U.S. Code. And it would seem to me that maybe that budget ought to be going down. Mr. Trandahl. I could provide that for the record, but I believe that what was traditionally a GPO-funded item under the printing and binding fund providing Members copies of the U.S. Code has been eliminated in the previous legislative branch appropriations bill. Mr. Walsh. All right. One step ahead of us. Are there any other questions? Mr. Serrano. Just a quick follow-up, Jim. You said low cost to lawyers? Or did you say no cost? Mr. John Miller. Actually, it would be no cost on the Web, yes. The database is also available on a CD ROM and that costs about $35, $36 for the entire Code. Mr. Walsh. You just have to buy a new CD ROM every so often? Mr. John Miller. Annually. It is only printed once a year, yes. Mr. Walsh. Any further questions? Mr. John Miller. Thank you very much. Mr. Walsh. Got off easy. Thank you. [The information follows:] [Page 147--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] [Clerk's note.--The Acting Chief Administrative Officer has supplied the following:] Funds were last appropriated under the House account ``Supplies, Materials, Administrative Costs and Federal Tort Claims'' for subscriptions to the U.S. Code in the fiscal year 1995 Legislative Branch Appropriation Bill. Each new Member would receive a full volume of the U.S. Code at no cost to the Member. At that time $420,000 was appropriated. The same amount was requested in Fiscal Year 1996 and subsequently deleted during markup. The U.S. Code became available on the Internet through the ``Thomas'' connection, through GPO ``Access'' and CD ROM, which is available through the Government Printing Office. The fiscal year 1996 cost incurred for the U.S. Code by the House was $43,996. office of legislative counsel Mr. Trandahl. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Mr. David Meade come to the table. The Office of Legislative Counsel, for salaries and expenses of the Office of Legislative Counsel, $4,824,000 is requested. Included in this request is $4,663,000 for personnel and $161,000 for nonpersonnel related items. This request is an increase of $137,000 above the amount enacted in the FY 1997 appropriation bill. At this time, I would be pleased to introduce David Meade, the Legislative Counsel, to testify on behalf of his FY 1998 budget request, and I would ask that after his statement, the following table on page 46 be inserted into the record. Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Jeff. Mr. Meade, welcome. Mr. Meade. Thank you, sir. Mr. Walsh. Is there anything you would like to say before we ask you a few questions? Mr. Meade. No. Mr. Walsh. You are a wise man. My father always said you never get criticized for what you don't say. Mr. Fazio. Anything you wouldn't like to say? Mr. Walsh. Are there any questions of Mr. Meade? [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] Questions. Staff in your office provide assistance to Members in drafting legislation. The output is set up to facilitate printing of bills and amendments at the Government Printing Office. The Legislative Counsel staff use XyWrite, the program used by GPO for setting bill type. If a Member wants to work on a copy of legislation drafted by Legislative Counsel, a paper copy is normally delivered or sent by FAX. An electronic copy cannot be provided. While XyWrite can export to ASCII text, format coding used by XyWrite is lost or sometimes interpreted as text of the legislation. What impediments do you see in being able to provide the requesting office electronic output that the requester can edit and pass back electronically, or add directly to a bill or Floor amendment, without undertaking format coding or other technical data input? Response. There are several impediments to our being able to pass electronic versions of legislative drafts back and forth between our office and a client's office in a form that they can use to ``add directly to a bill or floor amendment, without undertaking format coding or other technical data input''. Some are technical impediments and some are impediments relating to the professional accountability or attorneys in this office with regard to legislative language that is worked on in this office. Technical Impediments Currently many attorneys in our office pass the text of small provisions back and forth through e-mail with clients. There is no formatting or printing involved until the final document is produced. The chief technical impediment to passing text back and forth with formatting intact is the fact that client offices use a variety of word processing software. We have the ability (if time is available) to convert XyWrite- Microcomp documents into plain ASCII text, Microsoft Notepad, Wordpad, Word Perfect, or Microsoft Word. However, when this is done, all formatting is lost because Microcomp is a GPO proprietary program. It uses a type of text formatting that cannot be automatically picked up by other word processing software and vice versa. We do not believe that this problem is solvable until all House and Senate offices that interact with our office with regard to legislative language, and the GPO, use a single program for document output. Compatibility with GPO, the House Enrolling Clerk, and the Senate is critical to our operations. Even if all House offices used a single system for document formatting and processing, unless the Senate Legislative Counsel, the Enrolling Clerk, and GPO also used that system, we would exchange one very valuable form of compatibility for another possibly less valuable one. If we lost our ability to exchange documents with the Senate Legislative Counsel, the Enrolling Clerk, and GPO in a format that requires no additional input on the part of anyone, great inefficiencies and expense would result. Our current ability to produce documents that are 100 percent compatible with GPO, the Enrolling Clerk, and the Senate Legislative Counsel provide a great savings of time and expense. It is doubtful that the ability to produce documents that are 100 percent compatible with the variety of word processing programs used by our clients would save much time and expense for our office unless the GPO, the Enrolling Clerk, and the Senate Legislative Counsel are also onboard. Professional Accountability The other chief impediment to the type of exchange envisioned by question #1 is the need for attorneys in our office to authenticate the language sent out from this office in electronic form and to identify that language and the changes that are proposed when it is returned to us or published elsewhere in revised form. If language sent from this office is altered by a client without the attorney's knowledge, the attorney may be held accountable for the changed text. This could obviously cause serious problems for that attorney and for this office. This concern could be resolved by means of some mechanism for authenticating the text of documents that are exchanged with other offices. However, we do not yet know of any such mechanism. One possibility we have considered is the use of a program that allows documents generated in one office to be printed without alteration in another office. This would be similar to the use of paper documents so far as changing the text is concerned, but would allow more rapid electronic transfer and exchange without format change. Adobe Acrobat may enable us to transfer documents in this manner, but we have not yet been able to determine whether Adobe Acrobat documents are, or will continue to be, documents that can be authenticated in this respect. In any case, if we use a system that provides for authentication by not allowing the document to be altered, we will have solved the professional accountability problem, but not the problem of allowing each office involved in an electronic document exchange to make changes without retyping or reformatting the entire document Questions. What role is your office playing in current discussions on standardization of electronic files? Should Legislative Counsel been asked to participate? Response. At the invitation of Mr. Reynold Schweickardt, two representatives from our office attended a meeting in January of this year at the Committee on House Oversight. That meeting dealt with the issue of compliance with Rule XI, clause 2(e) (making publications available in electronic form). Since we make many documents available to committees for publication, the issue of printing format compatibility arose at that meeting. We also had a meeting with Mr. Ray Strong, Chief of Legislative Computer Systems in the Office of the Clerk in early February to discuss the Clerk's progress toward the goal of using SGML as a standard system within the House and Senate. We have had a few discussions with the Clerk's Office in the past, and we are eager to be a part of this effort, but so far we have not been asked to participate in depth in the project. The Clerk's Office is aware of our word processing system and of our needs for compatibility with GPO, the Enrolling Clerk, and the Senate Legislative Counsel, as well as the importance from a professional point of view of our being able to authenticate documents passed back and forth with our office. We would be very interested in participating fully in any discussions going on among House offices regarding the standardization of electronic files. This is a matter of great importance to our office. We are eager to assist the House with this project, and we hope that the issues mentioned in our answer to question #1 can be taken into account by those who are working toward this goal. Mr. Serrano. No. Just an observation, that his testimony looks like a bill. It does. Mr. Walsh. Put in bill language. Mr. Fazio. There will be no amendments. Mr. Walsh. Anyone else? Well, you had a nice day at the Congress today, Mr. Meade. Mr. Meade. Happy to be here. Mr. Walsh. Thank you for coming. [The information follows:] [Pages 151 - 162--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Fazio. Nice work every year. Mr. Trandahl. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the balance of the charts within the book before the subcommittee from page 47 all the way to page 61 be included into the record. Mr. Walsh. Without objection. [The information follows:] [Pages 164 - 178--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Closing Remarks Mr. Trandahl. Mr. Chairman, this would conclude my presentation of the House of Representatives fiscal year 1998 budget request for the House and certain joint items. I have appreciated the opportunity to speak before you today. Any assistance that can be provided during the FY 1998 budget deliberations will be delivered in an expeditious manner. I welcome any further requests for information and will provide answers at this time or as promptly as possible. Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you for your very well- prepared presentation, for helping us to coordinate the hearing today and bringing everyone in. I think it was very productive. And unless anyone else has any further comments---- Mr. Serrano. Just to also join you in thanking Jeff for a perfect--an excellent presentation and to all of those who joined you today. Mr. Trandahl. Very good staff. Mr. Fazio. And we hope this will be the first and last appearance. Mr. Trandahl. Thank you. Mr. Fazio. I know you feel that way. [A question from Chairman Walsh and response follows:] [Pages 180 - 194--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. On that point, we may very well need to ask people to come back before we get to a marking up of the legislative branch appropriations bill. But absent that, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you all very much. ---------- Tuesday, February 11, 1997. U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD WITNESSES HON. GREGORY S. CASEY, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. SENATE, CHAIRMAN, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD HON. WILSON LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MEMBER, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD HON. ALAN M. HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, MEMBER, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD GARY L. ABRECHT, CHIEF, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE Chairman's Opening Remarks Mr. Walsh. The subcommittee will come to order. We have before us today the Capitol Police Board. I would like to recognize our Ranking Minority Member, Congressman Serrano, and Vice Chairman of the subcommittee, just recently announced, Duke Cunningham. Welcome, gentleman. We will now take up the Capitol Police budget, which will be presented by the Capitol Police Board, all of whom are in attendance. Welcome, gentlemen. It is good to have the incoming Chairman of the Police Board, the Honorable Greg Casey, Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper. We also have Mr. Livingood, and then Mr. Hantman. budget request Before we proceed, let me state the budget request that has been submitted to the committee. Members will find details beginning on page 235, Part 1, on page 118 of the subcommittee print. Overall, the request is for $73.9 million for salaries and $5.4 million for general expenses. Those funds would support 1,259 full-time equivalent positions, an increase of three positions. Do we have your statement, Mr. Casey? Mr. Casey. I believe you do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. If you would like, please summarize. Remarks From Mr. Casey Mr. Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, my name is Greg Casey. On September 6th, I became the 34th Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the U.S. Senate. January 1, I became the Chairman of the Capitol Police Board, part of the regular rotation between the Sergeant at Arms of the House and the Senate. I am delighted to be here. I must tell you I have spent 15 delightful years on Capitol Hill, six of them over here on the House side. This is the first time I have been on this side of the table. I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, I much prefer being on that side. Mr. Walsh. I am sure you will do just fine given the 15 years of experience. Mr. Casey. I want to welcome Alan Hantman. This is day 7 for Alan as the 10th Architect of the Capitol. He comes to us from New York City, where he worked at Rockefeller Center. On his second day, I had the honor of working with Mr. Hantman, escorting the President around on the State of the Union, sort of a heady day for him. I also appreciate you, Mr. Chairman, understanding that I do have to make some arrangements for the President and Vice President coming up for a summit meeting on the Senate side this morning. I may have to leave before you finish with your questions. I appreciate your indulgence. Mr. Walsh. We will try to make them as brief as possible and let you go. Mr. Casey. Thank you, sir. I think it is fair to say the Capitol Police has been a department in transition for some time. As you know, it has the sole statutory authority for the law enforcement and security of the entire third branch of government, this building and the many tourists that come through here. That requires of us that we become a dynamic organization, constantly trying to meet the varied and ever- present and ever-changing threat assessment that occurs up here. With the leadership of this committee, we have had, I think, tremendous success, not only in becoming a top law enforcement organization, but in expanding the capabilities of the Capitol Police to be a full member of the intelligence and national security network within the Federal government. It is a responsibility of the Board, the three of us, to continue to do whatever we can to make sure that the institution of the Capitol Police remains a viable law enforcement organization. In discharging that responsibility, we have an obligation to both the department and to Congress. Our obligation to the department is to make sure that the pay and the benefits are commensurate for our uniformed officers, not only to the metropolitan police departments, those in this area, but also to other Federal agencies who have similar functions within the Federal system. We have a responsibility to you, to Members of Congress, to make sure that our budget request is reasonable, and that when we do receive these appropriated dollars, we use those dollars in a responsible and cost-effective manner. I believe that the program I am going to briefly outline to you is in keeping with that pledge, to make sure that we act in a cost-effective and responsible manner. All of these factors were, indeed, considered when we prepared the budget that is before you today. This budget reflects a 9 percent increase, basically concentrated in two areas. Number one, is an initiative on pay parity that the Sergeant at Arms in the House, Mr. Livingood, will discuss in more detail, for the sworn officers of the Capitol Police Force. And, second, a general increase in the expenses budget. That general increase in expenses basically is due to an accounting change where the costs of certain telecommunications and computers that were heretofore in the Senate Sergeant at Arms budget directly are being placed back on the Police budget. It is not new tax dollars, it is basically an accounting shift. We understand at the Capitol Police Board that although we have enjoyed tremendous operational successes and an increase in the professionalism of the force, that we must continue to try to improve. We have recognized that we must focus in this coming year on our administrative and management functions. Therefore, the Capitol Police Board passed a resolution that directs to the command staff to work with us in pursuing an administrative and management evaluation. We are basically going to look at three things: The financial management, the information technology, and the human resource management. We are going to take a systems approach. We are going to look at what we are doing right now with an eye towards improvement. We are going to begin laying out what we need to accomplish and what our priorities are, and we are going to identify the tools necessary to put the processes together to improve the three areas. We believe that this is a very responsible, proactive approach that will give you, the command staff of the Police and the Police Board, the kind of benchmarks against which to measure our improvements. We think that is a very responsible approach, and we look forward to getting that done in this fiscal year. In conclusion, let me say I don't have the same professional law enforcement background that Mr. Livingood does, and 5 months on the job does not necessarily make me an expert in much of anything. I have come to respect the professionalism of the Capitol Police. I have come to understand that they have a very difficult duty. Indeed, we are in a very dynamic and ever-changing mission mode up here. We protect the very building that is the symbol of the freedom of our country. We protect an entire branch of government, not only for those who work here, but for the millions of people who come up here to visit, not only from our country but from around the world. It is a very difficult mission. It is our job as the board to make sure that we get them the resources that are necessary to make sure that they achieve that mission. We believe it is also our job to make sure we do that in a cost-effective way. That is what we are dedicated to trying to get done. That is what is presented to you in this budget for 1998. I think that would finish my remarks, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you very much for the leadership that this committee has given and the support it has given to the Capitol Police. I would answer any questions. [The information follows:] [Pages 200 - 202--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Thank you for your statement. There may be some questions. Why don't we, first of all, give Mr. Livingood an opportunity to make his statement, if he would like. Mr. Livingood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. Summarize your statement. Remarks From Mr. Livingood Mr. Livingood. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as a member of the U.S. Capitol Police Board, it is my honor to appear before you to discuss the fiscal year 1998 budget request for the U.S. Capitol Police. I join Mr. Casey in welcoming Mr. Hantman to the U.S. Capitol Police Board. During my tenure as Sergeant at Arms of the House, I found my service on the board to be both challenging and rewarding, extremely challenging and rewarding. I know Mr. Hantman will find the experience equally satisfying. The experience he brings to the table will provide valuable insight on board decisions, and we welcome you. The U.S. Capitol Police is a unique law enforcement agency. It is charged with protecting the 535 Members of Congress and their families, congressional staff, the visiting public, and the buildings comprising the Capitol complex. To successfully meet its mission, the department has evolved into a full service security agency, instead of just a local police department, and it provides in addition to security for the Capitol, comprehensive law enforcement and protective operations to the legislative branch of government. The U.S. Capitol Police also interacts on an equal basis with agencies that deal in national security and intelligence matters. Due to the leadership and support of the committee, this committee, and the dedication and hard work of our personnel, the Capitol Police has made great strides in its operational capabilities. The Board feels it is now time to focus its efforts on the department's internal management mechanisms. In particular, the Board, as Mr. Casey said, will commission a review of the department's internal accounting, personnel, and information management functions, and also training, to ensure they are being performed in a manner which is consistent with industry standards. In addition, a police post and staffing level study is being conducted to ensure that our personnel are deployed in a manner that is both operationally effective and financially efficient. It is hoped that overtime expenditures will be further reduced once the study is completed. With regard to personnel issues, it has been the long- standing goal of the U.S. Capitol Police Board to ensure that the men and women of the Capitol Police maintain pay parity with their counterparts in other law enforcement agencies. Therefore, the U.S. Capitol Police fiscal year 1998 budget submission contains a request to fund two pay initiatives, scheduled leave inclusion and differential pay. These pay rates are consistent with rates paid for the officers of other similar law enforcement agencies. In order for the Capitol Police to attract and retain highly qualified officers, I feel it is imperative that these initiatives be fully funded. I am proud of the Capitol Police and the men and women that serve within the Capitol Police, their professionalism, and, above all, their attitude and their attitude towards making this a secure environment with a friendly and polite attitude. I would like to thank the committee for the support that you have given to the Capitol Police and to the Capitol Police Board, in particular the transfer of the physical security responsibilities from the Architect of the Capitol to the Capitol Police and for providing funding for necessary security upgrades recommended in the Capitol Police Secret Service study. This study provided the Board with numerous recommendations on how to improve security within the Capitol Complex. I would also like to thank the committee for your assistance in providing emergency funding to relocate the U.S. Capitol Police K-9 facility to the Architect's facility in Blue Plains. This is a tremendous improvement. We look forward to occupying the former metropolitan police facility this spring and urge the committee to approve the Architect's request to renovate that facility for the department's use. A detailed budget for the Capitol Police has been submitted to the committee, and at a later date, I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. [The information follows:] [Pages 205 - 206--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Bill. Before we get to questions, we will give Mr. Hantman the opportunity to make a statement, if he would like. Remarks From Mr. Hantman Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you can recognize, I am in the learning curve at this point in time. I hope to be able to make a real contribution as we go forward. At this point in time I really have no statement. Mr. Walsh. Very good. I would also recognize the Chief Architect, the Chief of the Capitol Police. Chief, do you have anything you would like to say at this time? Mr. Abrecht. Not very much. Mr. Walsh. You just happen to have a speech in your hip pocket. Remarks From Chief Abrecht Mr. Abrecht. Not a speech, Congressman. I have submitted a written statement for the record. I would like to briefly touch on a few items from that statement for your information that might be of interest to the committee in particular. As has been mentioned before, last year was a time of operational growth for the department. Due to the lessons learned from the Tokyo gas attack, for instance, the department has developed a chemical and biological incident response capability for the Capitol Complex. This capability compliments the exemplary explosives protection capacity that the department has maintained since 1971. In addition, we have expanded our protected intelligence capabilities. We routinely exchange information which impacts on the security of the United States Congress with other national security and intelligence agencies. You will recall that last year, I reported that threats against Members of Congress nearly doubled from the previous year. I am pleased to report that cases this year have decreased from last year's peak, although the number of threat cases is still above the average from the previous years. We continue to diligently investigate each case that is brought to our attention and work closely with other Federal law enforcement agencies to successfully resolve these cases. With regard to our law enforcement efforts, violent crime within the Capitol Complex continues to decline. The year before last, crimes against persons dropped 8 percent. Last year, such crimes decreased 33 percent to a total of only 16 reported incidents for an entire year. This figure is quite remarkable when one considers the millions of people who visit, travel through the buildings, streets and parks of the Capitol Complex each year. Property crimes also decreased by 29 percent compared to the previous 12-month period. This year's budget request contains a pay initiative which is intended to ensure that the salaries and benefits that the Congress provides for the men and women of the Capitol Police remain comparable to those which are provided to their counterparts in other similar Federal law enforcement agencies. Aside from the issue of fairness, this initiative will ensure the department can continue to recruit and retain the highly qualified officers we need to effectively perform our mission. The issue of attracting the best possible officer candidate has become even more critical due to the increasing complex and technical nature of our mission. Therefore, I urge the committee to support this request and provide funding to institute these pay initiatives. As a result of the leadership and support of the committee, the responsibility for physical security systems within the Capitol Complex has been transferred from the Architect of the Capitol to the new Capitol Police Physical Security Division. We are now moving forward with a system selection and installation design plan and will seek the approval of the committee to begin the procurement and installation phase. Once the installation is completed, all of the security systems in the Capitol will be state of the art and completely integrated. The systems will be more easily maintained and police alarm and emergency operations will be streamlined and improved. The installation of these systems is a significant advance in the security of the congressional community, and I thank the committee for their support of the project. I feel you will be very pleased with the results when they are done. Over the past several years, the department has made great strides in its operational capabilities. We have reduced crime, increased training, improved our response capabilities, addressed new threats, and, as I have just stated, we are in the process of making vast improvements in the physical security systems of the Capitol and office buildings. Now it is time for us to look inward and identify areas in our administrative infrastructure where improvements can be made and fiscal savings realized. We are pursuing two initiatives to attain the goal. First, we are conducting an exhaustive review of every police post to include staffing levels and the hours each post is required to be staffed in order to determine if our personnel can be redeployed. This review is being conducted to determine if police post staffing costs can be reduced without affecting security. Furthermore, we are reviewing staffing of support and administrative positions to see if there can be reductions. The second initiative consists of the comprehensive review of our internal administrative management systems. This initiative dovetails nicely with an effort that this committee has been pursuing for a number of years which is now coming to fruition. That is unifying the Capitol Police payroll through the use of a servicing agency such as the Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center. I am very pleased to report that the transfer of the House payroll to the NFC will occur next month. I am also excited that the Senate Sergeant at Arms is supportive of moving the Senate police payroll to the NFC as well and is seeking the approval of the committees of jurisdiction. A single unified payroll system for the department will maximize efficient utilization of resources and provide equity, quality and responsiveness. Further, it will provide the department with an integrated database which will enhance management information and reporting. Finally, like Mr. Livingood, I would like to thank the committee for your providing an appropriation to relocate our K-9 facilities. These dogs are an important element of the department's explosives detection capability. It is essential they be well cared for and provided adequate kenneling and training facilities. This spring we will move to the Metropolitan Police Department K-9 Building. This building is currently, unfortunately, in some disrepair. I hope the committee will therefore approve the Architect's request to renovate this facility for our use. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. [The information follows:] [Pages 210 - 212--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much, Chief, for your statement, and all of you. The Capitol Hill police, I think, have always enjoyed a very special relationship with the Congress, the House and Senate, the staffs. I know my father, who served here back in the seventies, also spoke very highly of the police officers he dealt with on a daily basis here. I am reminded when I first came 8 years ago, I remember reading, I think it was in Roll Call, they interviewed a Member who had left, retired, 3 or 4 years before, and they asked him if there was anything he missed about Washington. This is an individual that served here for many years. He said, yes, there is one thing. He said I miss the Capitol Police. That is the only thing that he missed. That is what you would describe---- Mr. Abrecht. We are touched. Mr. Walsh. That is a special relationship. Mr. Serrano. Did he elaborate on that? pay parity initiatives Mr. Walsh. No, he didn't, and I will not give you his name either, although Roll Call could probably figure it out. I have just a couple of questions I would like to ask. You have already touched on some of them. Maybe you could just expand a little bit. This issue of parity, as I understand it, and any of the members of the Board or the Chief can respond, parity in these termsmeans commensurate pay with other Federal police departments; is that right? Mr. Abrecht. That is correct, sir. Mr. Walsh. Now, if these items are approved, would it require legislative authority to use those funds? Mr. Abrecht. We would, of course, defer to the committees of jurisdiction on the House and Senate side to determine what level of authority approval would be required for that. We are not certain what exactly is required by the committees of jurisdiction. It has been handled in different ways for different changes made in the police pay scale. Some of them required actual legislation, and sometimes the committees determined they could be done by their own authority. Mr. Walsh. You probably ought to touch base with the authorizing committees to be clear on that. If parity is funded, will there be any differences between the Capitol Police and any other Federal police organizations? Mr. Abrecht. In the pay area, that will resolve all parity issues I know of. Obviously, since they are all under Title V, there are all sorts of administrative matters that are different. These are the major issues that are of concern to the force. [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] Question. If the pay parity initiatives are approved, will you require legislative authority to use the funds? Response. The requested funding would allow us to pay USCP uniformed personnel for various differentials that are paid to other law enforcement personnel under Title 5, including Sunday, holiday and night pay. Obviously, we would defer to the prerogative of the relevant House and Senate authorizing entities to determine what additional actions, if any, would be required prior to implementation. Question. In addition to the $212,000 requested for the new positions, you are requesting $4.4 million for ``mandatory'' pay changes. Last year's bill fenced $1.4 million for a prospective COLA and comparability increase, pending approval by the appropriate authorizing officials. Has that been approved? What increases were approved; at what annual cost? The FY 97 cost? Response. The increases were approved by the House Committee on Oversight as well as the Senate Sergeant at Arms. For uniformed personnel, the net increase was 3.3%, which included the nation-wide cost of living increase of 2.3% and the adjustment in pay for the Washington DC area. Civilian personnel received the 2.3% COLA. The FY 97 cost of these increases is estimated to be $1,341,000 and the annual cost $1,788,000. Question. In last year's omnibus appropriations bill, a $3,250,000 supplemental was included for security enhancements. Have you made any determinations of exactly how those funds will be expended? Give us an idea of what you intend to do. Response. Early in 1995 the USCP and the US Secret Service conducted a comprehensive physical security survey. In fiscal year 1996, responsibility for installations of physical security equipment was transferred to the USCP. Since that time, the USCP established a Physical Security Division (PSD), appointed a director and hired staff. A five- year budget and program plan was developed, approved by the Board and forwarded to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. The Board then directed the PSD to provide a comprehensive security implementation plan based on the USCP/ USSS survey. In December 1996, the USCP engaged the Department of the Army, Physical Security Equipment Management Office to assist in the development of the implementation plan. This survey was completed in early February and includes technical design, equipment selection, installation and cost estimates. This three-phase plan will now be presented to the appropriate committees to expand the required funding to initiate phase I for FY 97. Approval will be sought within the next three weeks. Additionally, in fiscal year 1997 responsibility for the maintenance of physical security was transferred to the USCP. At the time of this transfer, there were only 52 on-line accounts on the House side for the Members' duress alarm system, which had taken over three years to install. Since that time, the USCP has installed 245 additional systems in less than six months. Additionally, the Maintenance Section has completed more than 1000 requests for service repairs since October 1, 1996. This is double the amount completed in the entire preceding year prior to the transfer. We have accomplished this without increase in personnel, funding or overtime while expanding coverage to seven days each week. Question. As you know, there are some specific rules that must be complied with before any alterations are made to the buildings, including the Capitol. Leadership approvals and so forth, are required. I expect you will be working closely with the Architect of the Capitol in the design of these improvements and in making sure the appropriate approvals are obtained. Response. We are nearing the completion of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Office of the Architect as specified in the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3610, Making Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997, to delineate the process for implementing security projects. We have also initiated an architectural steering group comprised of AOC and USCP representatives to look at the architectural requirements of existing and planned security installations. Question. Last year, we provided funds to alleviate a terrible situation that had developed at the former Capitol Police canine center at Poplar Point. We also got the D.C. government to comply with an agreement they made with the Architect several years ago to build a new canine facility for the use of the D.C. Metropolitan Police. When this new facility is built (currently under construction), the Capitol Police will be able to move into the facility that will be vacated by the D.C. canine unit. What is the status of that project? Response. The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) has completed all their assigned work related to the emergency funding. The obedience, attack, and agility fields have been completed and fenced. All the trailers and storage areas have been put in place. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) will turn over their old facility, which includes 12 indoor kennels, to the U.S. Capitol Police in April, after they move to their new training facility, which is now under construction. Even though these kennel facilities are an improvement from the one at Poplar Point, they still need considerable renovation. The AOC has requested funds to renovate our kennel facilities in FY 1998 and FY 1999. Question. Since the new D.C. facility is virtually adjacent to the one the Capitol Police will occupy, are there any plans to share some of the space for common training grounds and the like? Response. We plan to share the obedience, attack, and agility fields with MPD. Question. It would be a shame if we did not try to work out a cost-effective relationship with the D.C. police force on this matter. I suggest the Chief look into this and report back to the Committee on the possibilities. Response. Certainly we are in agreement that the most cost- efficient relationship possible be pursued and implemented. As we move into the facility we will look for opportunities to maximize the sharing of resources and will keep the Committee apprised of our actions. computer and telecommunications services Mr. Walsh. The Senate Sergeant at Arms is requesting to be reimbursed for the computer telecommunications services he provides to Capitol Police. Could you explain briefly what those are, the services? Mr. Casey. There are some hard costs that are provided in the Senate radio, Senate telecommunications services, computer service, those kinds of things, that have been provided directly as a cost charged to the Senate Sergeant at Arms. The history of that is somewhat muddled. It goes back to a few years ago when there was an assessment done of the communications system in the Capitol Police, and it was found to be wanting. There was no other way to go, so the Senate Sergeant at Arms just sort of unilaterally decided at that point in time to provide for an enhanced communications system. It has now just been internalized to the Senate Sergeant at Arms budget. It is obviously earmarked in our budget as the communications and computer systems for the Capitol Police. Mr. Walsh. You carry it in your budget. Mr. Casey. We just carry it directly in our budget. It is basically an accounting transfer. If we want them to do a better job of managing their resources, we have to get their resources to a point where they can manage them. Mr. Walsh. Does the House do this? Mr. Livingood. The House pays only one area for the Capitol Police and that is the telephone service on the House side. Mr. Walsh. What about the administration of police personnel records and so on? Is that a House expense also? Mr. Livingood. Gary, you can answer that. Mr. Abrecht. One of the anomalies about this agency is that our payroll is split. Half of our people are on the House roll, and half on the Senate roll. Mr. Walsh. Is that a good idea? Mr. Abrecht. No, sir. Mr. Walsh. Does everybody agree? Okay. Mr. Abrecht. So half of our payroll administration is done by the Senate Disbursing Office, and half by the House Finance Office. The only small wrinkle is that all of our disbursing for general expenses is handled through the House, so the House Finance does bear the additional burden of administering our general expense accounting function, which is not on the Senate side. Mr. Walsh. Does the House charge for those services, or is there a reimbursement done? Mr. Abrecht. No, sir. Mr. Walsh. If the Senate is going to do it, should the House be doing it, or should we both be doing it the same way? Mr. Casey. If I may, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things that appear that are incidental items. We do some long distance phone charges. We take care of some printing. We take care of the radios for the cars, the car washes, stuff like that. There are a lot of things that we do that are incidental that we are not charging for. The only reason I bring these up is that this is not a small item. We are talking over $2 million. I want to go ahead and find every single pocket of these monies, but when you are talking of that size of a resource and something that critical, I look at the communications, particularly as we are moving into the increased communications age, as being a critical part of their mission. I am more interested in having the Capitol Police have control of their own destiny in that whole area, as much as I am of just getting the cost shifted over there. That is why we are making the change. [A question from Chairman Walsh and response follows:] Question. Have you asked the House if they can provide computer and telecommunications services rather than increasing the burden on your budget by $2.2 million? If not, you might ask the Chief Administrative Officer if he can help out. Response. To date, we have not had any discussions with the Chief Administrative Officer regarding their willingness or ability to provide these services. We will pursue this avenue, but at this stage of the budget cycle it is unlikely that they would be able to accommodate us in fiscal year 1998. record keeping Mr. Walsh. The issue of record keeping, apparently there is an auditor report that said that the record keeping is not good, and that there are problems with management, data controls, accounting reconciliations, keeping of overtime records, all these things. Does anyone care to comment on that? Mr. Abrecht. We have aging data systems in the department in a number of areas. There are mainframe systems run on the Senate computer center, they are written in very obtuse code and old languages. They are really quite old. In a number of areas, we really have some concerns about the quality of our data systems. That is one of the areas that the management study that Mr. Casey discussed at some length will be focusing on, is getting us proper data systems, both to give you information that you need to do your work, and certainly information that I need to deploy personnel in a proper manner, to account for how much it costs to do everything we do up here, and to look at ways we can save money. So we have some data system problems that we would like to improve substantially. The Congressional Accountability Act has had some impact on this. When the Congressional Accountability Act came in, we were placed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which has a whole different set of rules for overtime and all of that. We went to reprogram our computer to accommodate all these changes, and we have had just a tremendous amount of difficulty in getting this very antiquated system brought up-to-date to track the overtime under the FLSA rules, which are completely different from the system we used to operate on. That is just one example of a complex system, which is a 24-hour-a-day operation, 7 days a week, that has a lot of differences from your typical government operation, 5-day-a- week kind of operation. This system needs some work. So that is one of the many systems. We have difficulty reconciling our personnel data with our time and attendance data and our accounting data. There is a need for an integrated management operation or accounting system, and that is what we are asking for in this. Mr. Casey. That was one of the primary motivations behind the board passing the resolution to get on with this evaluation. I would prefer to look at those not as problems, but as challenges. We are one with the command staff in addressing that and getting this done this fiscal year. transfer of police payroll function to the national finance center Mr. Walsh. This payroll to NFC, is that part of this? Mr. Abrecht. That would be a very key part of it, sir, absolutely, because, particularly if the Senate side goes down as well, we will then have one personnel database, and it is an outstanding one. The NFC operates an outstanding, fully integrated personnel---- Mr. Walsh. What does NFC mean? Mr. Abrecht. National Finance Center. It is part of the Department of Agriculture, servicing 400,000 Federal employees who are paid through it. Mr. Walsh. You would just provide them with the data and they would manipulate it for you and do the payroll? Mr. Abrecht. And physically give us the checks, give each officer a pay slip that explains exactly how the money was earned, how much of it is overtime, which they don't get at this point. Mr. Livingood. It will be a tremendous help. Mr. Casey. The bifurcated nature of the pay system right now is untenable, and it needs to be fixed. Obviously the onus is on my shoulders to see if we can't do in the Senate what you have done in the House. Mr. Walsh. I think, too, there is obviously a turf issue, and whenever you have got divided payroll and records, people are going to say, well, they are treated better than we are. Mr. Casey. We actually have different policies. There are actually policy differences, which means we have to treat the officers differently. new positions Mr. Walsh. Well, the last question. You need three additional FTEs. You can't find those within existing ranks? You can't reshuffle or shift? Mr. Abrecht. I guess it is a case of death by 1,000 cuts. Every time we need something new, we say, well, it is only one or two, can't you find them? We have experienced some reduction already of like 70 positions since I came here. It becomes difficult to keep finding those without pulling people off of things already being done, police posts, and then that causes overtime to go up. So it is difficult. They are critical positions. If the Senate comes over on the NFC system as well, two of those positions will support the personnel functions that will be necessary coming over from the Disbursing Office. The other is we are just desperately in need of legal help. The Congressional Accountability Act has imposed a whole host of new requirements on us, and we have one lawyer for an operation the size of the Capitol Police Force. With all the personnel law issues that are coming up, he has just been absolutely buried. We just need help in that regard. Those are the requests being made. [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] Question. You are requesting three additional positions to be added to the Senate rolls. What is the basis for assigning them to the Senate payroll as opposed to the House payroll? Response. Two of the positions are requested to support the anticipated migration of the Senate payroll to the National Finance Center. The remaining position will be in the Office of the General Counsel. The General Counsel is currently on the House payroll and we have typically attempted to balance the payrolls within the divisions and bureaus of the Department between the two payrolls. Question. Would it be possible to use attrition for these positions and fill them when three other positions are vacated? Response. It is increasingly difficult to absorb the staffing of new functions through attrition. In fiscal year 1992, the Capitol Police had an authorized staffing level of 1,357 positions. For the past two years we have operated within the authorized level of 1,299. Ultimately, the utilization of existing FTE creates shortages in other areas of the Department requiring the use of overtime to fill the void. Further, the new FTE's requested are for civilian/administration activities and it is not prudent to utilize FTE that would otherwise be dedicated to activities of sworn personnel for this purpose. Question. For the record, please supply a table reflecting the total authorized positions, the total funded positions, and the actual full-time equivalent (FTE) usage for the Capitol Police for fiscal years 1994-1997. For 1997, project the actual based on year-to-date including recruitment and hiring plans for the remainder of the fiscal year. Include fiscal year 1998 figures for authorized positions and the number of FTE the request would fund. Response. The information follows: U.S. CAPITOL POLICE--FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- ------------------------------------------------------ 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Authorized............................................... 1,352 1,281 1,299 1,299 1,302 Funded................................................... 1,233 1,281 1,299 1,256 1,259 Actual \1\............................................... 1,212 1,176 1,233 1,249 ......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Estimated, fiscal year 1997. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Serrano. MANAGEMENT REVIEW Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me join the Chairman in commenting on the unique relationship between the Capitol Police and the Members of both Houses, and the staff. Of course, that is a very self-serving statement, because we like the security you provide for us. Sometimes you should provide us security from each other, but I know you can't do that. Mr. Cunningham. They do. Mr. Abrecht. The Sergeants at Arms do that. Mr. Serrano. I forgot about that. One question, Mr. Chairman, that comes to mind immediately, and one that perhaps we should ask everyone that comes before us is: You mention your antiquated system and bringing it up-to-date. I would imagine, backing up a second, that if tomorrow there was a new way of dealing with public disturbances, you as a law enforcement officer of many years have the ability to lead your department to move into that direction and to look at those new methods. I get the feeling this computer technology is just thrust on everybody, from schools to hospitals to you, and my question is, do you have people, outside folks or consultants or whatever, that come in and show you how to bring you along? Or are you trying to figure this out as you do everything else? Mr. Casey. Well, it is a very good question. It is a problem that is being universally faced. The Senate Computer Center, which is a $392 million concern by itself, is facing the same thing. We have a dynamic movement in the kind of technology that is going on. That computer center is in itself doing an evaluation of how it is going to remain abreast of that kind of technology. Part of what has happened, I think, with the Capitol Police is that they have inherited some obsolete technology, and we need to correct that so that they can be as dynamic as is required by the changing needs of the job. The way we intend to do that is by this process. That is what this management and administrative evaluation is all about. Rather than prescribing what the solution is first, we are going to find out what the need is. We are doing that in the Senate computer system as well. So we are going to go out and find out what the need for it is first, before we go in and describe the solution. It is going to take time. Mr. Serrano. The center has people equipped to deal with what the need is the same way you would be equipped to deal with other areas. If I tell you there is a problem with the way people run out of cars and confuse police officers on the street, I know you can deal with that. But if I say to you, okay, everything has to be computerized, you might say excuse me, that is not my field. That is not what I do. Mr. Abrecht. Internally we have a very small data processing capability. We basically have people who are LAN managers, not someone who can solve the overarching problems. They are excellent people and do a very good job, but they are not at the level of what would be needed to design a whole new management information system. Mr. Casey. We are going to go to GAO to get their help. We also have a number of vendors that work for the computer center that will be able to design what it is we need to look at. I think the most important part is the process of evaluating what we are going to require, the forward-looking analysis of what it is these guys are going to have to have in 5 years and 10 years, and that we have not done. We have the outside resources available to us to get that look down the road completed effectively. Mr. Serrano. This internal study that you are going todo, which speaks about management and fiscal needs, and also speaks about training, is this something you do periodically, or is being done because you suspect there is a problem? If part of it or all of it is geared toward reducing costs, are you running the risk of sacrificing the quality of your service? How do you balance that? That is the toughest thing to do these days. How do you balance continuing to give us the kind of service that we want from you, and at the same time, reducing costs? Mr. Casey. Mr. Chairman, if I may, good management is not destination, it is process. What we are trying to do with what we are doing now is designed within the systems at the Capitol Police, a process of continual evaluation. We are not driven strictly by the need to reduce the cost. Certainly, if we can better utilize our resources, then we can reduce our costs. That is what we are really trying to focus on, are we utilizing our resources in the best way possible to meet the mission? No, we are not driven by just the one need to reduce costs. What we are trying to develop is a systematic approach that continues within the department to continue to keep the department dynamic. We think we can improve that. Mr. Abrecht. I would just add, in my capacity, since I bear the ultimate responsibility, you will never see me sit here and allow any cost reduction that is going to compromise the security of this institution, or I won't be sitting here. history of two payrolls Mr. Serrano. Just one last question, Mr. Chairman. Is there a historical reason why we have that split payroll? Does that create a problem other than the obvious one? Are people being paid at different times? Mr. Livingood. Yes, sir. Mr. Abrecht. The history of this is fairly straightforward. There was formerly a patronage system entirely. Half of the patronage positions were on the House side and half were on the Senate side. They were filled with students going to college. This goes back 20 or 30 years ago. So half of them were paid as House employees once a month, and half are still paid on the Senate roll twice a month. So there are differences, quite a few. Professionalization of the force started almost 30 years ago now, probably under the impetus of the two bombings of the Capitol where it was determined that a nonprofessional patronage kind of operation was not effective. The department began to professionalize. About 2 years ago, I guess, the last of the nominally patronage positions were abolished. It is now a fully professionalized force. We recruit completely without regard to any influence or anything like that and in the standard way that any Federal law enforcement agency recruits. So there have been tremendous changes. Dual payroll is essentially a vestige of a long lost kind of police entity that would not make any sense in the present day. Mr. Livingood. I will just add, that is why the National Finance Center is an answer to this. Hopefully the Senate will join the House in the National Finance Center. For the officers, it is going to make a big difference, because right now, even with their overtime on the House side, they have no idea what hours they worked or when it was, because it is not set up in an accounting system that the National Finance Center will be. I have experienced it in the past, and it has been excellent. Mr. Serrano. Thank you. [A question from Chairman Walsh and response follows:] Question. You also mention the possibility of getting your accounting needs ``cross-serviced'' by another agency. Have you asked the Library of Congress or the General Accounting Office for help on this? Would this arrangement save money? Response: The accounting function within the Department is currently being performed on an outdated system which has been in use for over ten years. There are several options available including the development of our own accounting system. We believe that it may be more cost efficient and timely however to be cross-serviced by another agency and we have begun discussions with several agencies, including the Library of Congress, to determine which may best meet our requirements. While we have not directly discussed our requirements with the General Accounting Office, they will be included in our review prior to making any decisions. There would not be any reported savings through this initiative. The Office of the Chief Administrative Officer currently provides disbursement data only via hard copy. Accrual accounting is being performed to a limited degree on the ten year old system operated on the Senate Computer Center mainframe which is being phased out. There is a possibility that the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer will be able to bring the Department on-line with the new Federal Financial System once it is successfully implemented for the House. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Cunningham. coordination with intelligence agencies Mr. Cunningham. I will just be brief. I would like to express my sentiments on the professionalism of the Capitol security staff across the board, especially during Desert Storm and things like that. I think you serve as a model for a lot of law enforcement agencies, not just your professionalism but in the courtesy and the politeness of your officers. I have only been here six years, but I have never run across--and I don't know how you do it, because all of us have a bad day from time to time--such consistent professionalism. A couple of areas that I see increasing: Hopefully this year it will not be as bad as the last two years, since we are using the President's budget as a base. But when protest groups come in and disrupt different hearings when I was a chairman, that was always a concern. You acted very well,but I just see an increased agitation in the country for those kinds of things on both sides, whether it is abortion, whether it is seniors, or whatever it happens to be. I would sure like to see those clamped down, and where there is suspicion that they are going to appear somewhere, to make sure that they don't disrupt. The second area is that I was glad to see you are working with intelligence agencies. If you look at the worldwide movement of Hamas and the fundamentalists around the world, and in Bosnia, with the 12,000 Mujahedin, they are planning on moving into Europe and exporting terrorism. I can see an increased threat. I would hope that, almost on a daily basis, you would get an update of what different movements are, not only external, but internal. We have got nutcakes within our own country that are increasing the number of bombs. It seems like every day you find pipe bombs and all kinds of stuff. When you are being cut in force, your load goes up. And that is not good. officer training Mr. Cunningham. Another thing: As a former commanding officer, I want to know if you have an education advancement program where you encourage your officers to go to night school or go to community colleges? Is there any kind of program for that? Mr. Abrecht. We certainly encourage them to do that. We, unfortunately, do not have any situation where we pay them, pay their tuition, for instance, for that type of education or give them released time. But we have encouraged that universally. On occasion, where we can find some benefit to the department, we have allowed released time to do it. We send all of our command staff for training to the FBI National Academy. Eventually everyone gets to go. At this point, we are down to the middle of our lieutenants. All of our top staff has gone. We have sent top level commanders to the Senior Management Institute for Police at Harvard University in the summertime. We try to send one every year for that. We do a considerable amount of management training as well as, of course, training in-house for the officers. We also have training for all of our first-line supervisors and all of our experienced officers. Mr. Cunningham. I found that that was a benefit in squadron level. I had to take it out of my hide sometimes, but in the long run it paid dividends. I got every one of my enlisted personnel educated. The hardest thing was taking in the master chief or senior chief in a squadron that had done things with a pencil for 20 years, and tell them they had to do it with a computer. But we put them in a computer class. In the end our efficiency went up by leaps and bounds. I know when you are short of personnel, education and training is hard to do. But to get them through a computer course, with the technology boom of the 21st century, the last thing you want is for law enforcement to be left behind. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Mr. Latham. staffing to process payroll Mr. Latham. I would like to associate myself with your remarks as far as the Capitol Police. I think they do a tremendous job, obviously, and I think they have an impossible situation many times. To maintain the public access here and still maintain security is a tremendous challenge obviously. I have one question here. In the request, there are two additional full-time equivalents in payroll, and then, on the other hand, you are going to move the payroll to the National Finance Center. Why would you need additional people? I would think there would be some savings in that area if you are going to actually do that. Mr. Abrecht. If there are savings, they are are savings to others, unfortunately, because presently, all payroll processing is done in the Senate Disbursing Center for those Senate employees. We would be taking over the benefits counseling, personnel, and payroll processing functions. For instance, if you decide you wanted to change health care providers, presently I would say to you, you are on my Senate payroll, so go over to Senate disbursing and make the change. Under NFC all of that would be done internally in our personnel operation. So that is where the additional work load comes to us. Whether the Senate disbursing office would be able to reduce staff, I obviously don't know. Mr. Latham. What is the time frame as far as the internal management evaluation? Is that going to be completed in this next cycle, or when will it be done? Mr. Abrecht. We are hoping to get that accomplished quickly. We are going to try to push it fairly quickly and have it completed certainly this calendar year in order to be prepared, if we need to come to the committee for help, it would be for the next budget cycle. Mr. Latham. Is that redundant? Shouldn't the IG be doing basically the same thing? Mr. Abrecht. One of the oddities of our system is we are a bicameral enterprise. The IG is a House enterprise, so there is some question as to how much they can help. Mr. Livingood. Two years ago when we came and started looking at systems, we talked to the IG about the possibility of doing a study of the Capitol Police: Financial, computers, are they integrated, are they talking to each other, programming. It is on their agenda, and we will be talking to the IG once we come up with a list of everything we want done, a statement of work. We will have to see if the Senate will agree how we can go about this and what is the process. I would like to see, just personally, the IG manage it for the Capitol Police Board. That would be for the police board, and with the two entities working together. But we haven't gotten that far yet. Mr. Latham. Apparently there were some recommendations, and I don't have them all here, I don't know whether the K-9 part by the IG before. Does your request reflect concerns that they had before, answering the concerns from the IG? Mr. Abrecht. No. It really reflects internal concerns that we have. The IG, to my knowledge, has never discussed this issue with me in any way. Mr. Livingood. The IG has not looked at the Capitol Police at all. This was just strictly the board and the chief and the management wanting to get a fresh update. Times have changed so rapidly in computers and management, we wanted to make sure we are interfacing together. Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. unified payroll requires legislation Mr. Walsh. Just to wrap up, this issue of putting all the records in one house at the NFC, obviously, and I think I can speak for the subcommittee here, it would have our support. But can you explain, to my understanding this conversation has gone on before the last several years, but nothing happened. Is it because it is not getting a priority in terms of legislation on the authorizing committees, or can you explain why it hasn't occurred, and is there anything we particularly can do to be supportive? Mr. Abrecht. Obviously, everything that the House can do has been done. Mr. Wolff and the authorizing committee have been supportive, the House Finance office has been supportive, the Chief Administrative Officer, all entities on the House side. Mr. Walsh. Do you need statute or action by the authorizing committee? Mr. Abrecht. No. Their approval has already been obtained. No statutory change is required. Mr. Livingood. Because it is in the appropriations. Mr. Walsh. The idea of merging the payrolls---- Mr. Livingood. That is what we are trying to do. Mr. Abrecht. A true merger would require statutory change. Currently, if the Senate goes to NFC there will still be two technical payrolls, to the extent that personnel action approvals will go to either House Oversight or the appropriate Senate authority. Mr. Walsh. Why don't we try to do it all at once? Mr. Abrecht. That would require major legislative change because there are references to these two payrolls in applicable laws that would have to be changed. Mr. Walsh. Is there no support for that on the authorizing committees? Mr. Abrecht. I don't know if it has ever been discussed at that level in recent years. Mr. Latham. You say on the House side they are paid once a month and on the Senate side they are paid twice a month? Mr. Abrecht. That is correct. There are still two appointing authorities essentially. That will remain. It will just be a question of once they are appointed, they would be treated exactly the same. So from the officers' point of view, it would be largely transparent, which payroll they happen to be on. Mr. Walsh. There is a separate hierarchy that hires for the Senate and a separate hierarchy that hires for the House? Mr. Abrecht. That is correct. It is an oversight function. While the selecting is done by the Capitol Police, it is subject to the oversight authority. Mr. Livingood. Signed off on the House by the House Sergeant at Arms for House employees under their payroll, and signed off on by the Senate Sergeant at Arms for those employees. We don't see their interviews. Mr. Walsh. Are the responsibilities different for these men and women? Mr. Livingood. Exactly the same. Mr. Walsh. The pay scale is the same? Mr. Livingood. Yes, sir. It would make sense to me, to me as an outsider here, a fairly new employee of the House---- Mr. Walsh. It sure would to me. Mr. Livingood [continuing]. To unify the two payrolls. Mr. Latham. They are identical as far as operations. Mr. Livingood. It is common sense. Everything else is unified. Mr. Abrecht. The officer standing in front of the door of the Rayburn Building where you come in in the morning, could very well be a Senate employee. The odds are 50 percent he is. Mr. Walsh. Are there any additional costs associated with that, to keep that separate? Mr. Abrecht. Yes. There are certainly a lot of administrative costs on us to track each one. Well, this officer is getting promoted, so we send this promotion to the Senate side; this is a Senate guy; we send it this way. It gets really exciting when we have several promotions and they are moving between rolls because the vacancies are in different places. Mr. Livingood. In the long run, the savings would be to the Senate and House in their human resources area, because the Capitol Police would assume the human resources area for all of the Capitol Police. Mr. Serrano. Are they going to have separate labor unions? Mr. Abrecht. When the Congressional Accountability Act was passed, they did establish the Capitol Police Board as the employing authority for that purpose. [A question from Ms. Kaptur and response follows:] Question. I noticed that none of your statements mention the possible unionization of the Capitol Police. If this does occur, has there been a determination of how much overtime will have to be paid under the Congressional Accountability Act? If so, does your FY 98 budget reflect this? Response. Effective January 23, 1996 the Department was subject to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as adopted by the Congressional Accountability Act. The applicable provisions of the FLSA as of that date have been incorporated into the US Capitol Police (USCP) overtime system. Since several issues regarding unionization have yet to be resolved by the Office of Compliance, it is difficult to ascertain what impact unionization, as a whole, will have on the future operations of the Department. Unrelated to the unionization question and in our continued effort to apply the FLSA in an equitable and fiscally responsible manner, the Capitol Police Board has requested funding in fiscal year 1998 for several pay initiatives, including Sunday pay, holiday pay and evening shift pay. Additionally, we have requested funding to allow the inclusion of scheduled leave to count toward the 85 hour threshold established under FLSA for the purposes of earning overtime. If the Committee approves the scheduled leave initiative, it would increase our overtime estimate by the amount of $676,000. Of course, all matters of pay and benefit administration are subject to approvals of the appropriate funding and authorizing committees in the House and Senate. Mr. Walsh. Maybe we should talk and see if we can develop a communication from the subcommittee to the authorizing committees to suggest that it would be a good idea to merge all the administrative matters. Mr. Hantman. There may be in fact some parallels between the Architect of the Capitol's staff, as we serve both sides of the Congress. We come before you tomorrow afternoon, and we report to you on the issues that impact the House, we then go to the Senate and report on the issues impacting the Senate, and joint issues are brought to both bodies. But in fact, we have one organization to service. Mr. Walsh. Perhaps with your fresh perspective on these things, you can give us advice on whether or not it would make sense to merge the responsibilities. I understand we have an HVAC system that we share, we have water we share, we have sewer we share, we have a lot of things. Maybe there is an opportunity here to get some efficiencies by combining those. [A question from Chairman Walsh and responses follows:] Question. For the record, please supply all reprogramming requests made last year and the disposition of each by the appropriations Committees. Response. The information follows. [Pages 226 - 233--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Are there any other questions of the members? Thank you very much. ---------- Tuesday, February 11, 1997. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE WITNESSES JUNE E. O'NEILL, DIRECTOR JAMES L. BLUM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR GAIL DEL BALZO, GENERAL COUNSEL STANLEY L. GREIGG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS POLLY E. HODGES, BUDGET AND FINANCE OFFICER DAVID M. DELQUADRO, PERSONNEL OFFICER MARK G. DESAUTELS, ASSISTANT FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DANIEL F. ZIMMERMAN, CHIEF, SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH UNIT Mr. Walsh. We will now call up the 1998 budget request for the Congressional Budget Office. Welcome. We have with us Dr. June O'Neill, CBO director--welcome, Dr. O'Neill. Dr. O'Neill was appointed as the fourth director on March 1, 1995. We have also Mr. James Blum, the deputy director. Welcome to both of you. Before we proceed, let me indicate the budget request. CBO is requesting approximately a $25 million budget for fiscal year 1998. No staffing increases are requested. The Budget Office is leading by example, I see. Dr. O'Neill, would you like to introduce any other members of your staff at this time? Ms. O'Neill. Yes. Present today with me are the key people who have been working with the budget and administration at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), starting with Dan Zimmerman, who heads our computer services area; Dave Delquadro, our personnel officer; Polly Hodges, our budget officer; Gail Del Balzo, our general counsel; and Stan Greigg, who heads our intergovernmental relations unit that contains the personnel budget; and Mark Desautels, who does our communications. Mr. Walsh. Welcome to the whole team. Mr. Cunningham. They are all Irish. Mr. Walsh. Be careful. Okay, you may proceed with your statement if you would like. I believe we all have your statement, if you would like to summarize. cbo's mission Ms. O'Neill. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am very pleased to be here to submit our budget request for fiscal year 1998. CBO's mission is to provide the Congress with objective, timely, and nonpartisan analysis, that is needed for the congressional budget process and for economic decisionmaking in the Congress. CBO does not make policy recommendations, but presents the Congress with options and alternatives covering a wide array of subjects that have economic and budgetary impacts. new responsibilities CBO has had a very busy year. On January 1, 1996, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act took effect. That act set up new procedures for alerting the Congress to the potential effects of unfunded mandates before they are imposed on state, local, and tribal governments. The key to that process is the requirement that CBO provide statements to authorizing committees about whether reported bills contain mandates, and if so, their estimated costs. In carrying out those new responsibilities, CBO used an estimated 24 work years of staff effort last year. Our appropriation for 1996 provided funds for 13 additional staff positions, and we reallocated another 11 staff years of efforts from other tasks. Our original estimate of the mandate work load assumed that we would have to prepare analyses of 550 intergovernmental and 550 private sector mandates annually. In fact, last year we transmitted cost estimates of approximately 700 intergovernmental and 700 private sector mandates to the Congress. Although it was a strain, we managed to hold approximately to the resource level for which we had budgeted. CBO has just completed a report analyzing its first year of operation under the Unfunded Mandate Act, and I have provided copies of the report for the Committee's information. a major new effort Another major new effort undertaken by CBO last year was that of developing the analytical tools to examine the budgetary impacts of the retirement of the baby boom generation that will begin around 2010. For the past several years, CBO has been comparing 10-year budget processes and policies to serve as a benchmark for estimating the effects of the policy proposals. A 10-year time frame, however, is not sufficient to show the dramatic effects on the Federal budget of the projected aging of the U.S. population combined with unchecked increases in per capita Medicare costs. To illustrate those future prospects, CBO needed to prepare very long-term budget projections extending as far as 2050. CBO's long-term projections show that the Federal deficit will begin to mount rapidly after 2010 under current budget policy, setting in motion a vicious cycle of rising interest rates, slowing economic growth, and further erosion of the budget and economic outlook. Because the projected escalation in Federal spending will be concentrated largely in Medicare and Social Security, CBO included a special chapter in its report on options for reducing the deficit. That report was issued last August. It examined options for limiting the long-term growth of outlays for those programs. We believe that analysis to be a significant one, and so we have extended and updated the work and will publish it this spring as a stand-alone report entitled ``Long-Term Budgetary Pressures and Policy Options.'' line item veto effects As in other years, CBO has maintained its normal support of the Congressional budget and legislative processes throughout the fiscal year. We performed cost estimates for hundreds of bills, maintained a steady flow of scorekeeping reports to the appropriations committees, and prepared reports and testimony on a broad array of topics. Those activities are detailed in my prepared statement. Also, I should note that CBO has new responsibilities under the Line Item Veto Act that began January 1, 1997. Although the work required will not be nearly as demanding as that required by the Unfunded Mandate Law, each time the President exercises his authority under the Line Item Veto Act, CBO is required to provide the budget committees with an estimate of the reductions in budget authority and outlays stemming from the President's action. cbo's budget request Now I would like to turn to our budget request for fiscal year 1998. In that request, as noted, was $24,995,000, which allows for an increase of 1.9 percent, or $463,000, more than our fiscal year 1997 appropriation. The amount of our request is about half of the 4 percent increase that CBO would need to maintain its budget at the level of current services. That is taking account of pay and benefit increases and other rising costs. The requested amount would fund our current staff ceiling of 232 full-time equivalent positions, but in order to hold our requested increase to 1.9 percent, we would reduce spending on automated data processing, printing, and postage by a total of $542,000. Although CBO should be able to maintain its current work load with the funds requested here, I would like to point out that the law dealing with unfunded mandates, as well as the Congressional Accountability Act, will continue to have a significant cost impact on our budget. costs of new duties CBO has now had a full year of operation under the Unfunded Mandates Act, and the costs of carrying out its responsibilities are becoming clearer. Both our fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 budgets are based on the assumption that the required level of work on mandates will fall somewhat after the first year. That is, we have had our year of on-the- job training. But considering the pace of work on unfunded mandates last year, that assumption could prove optimistic. Furthermore, a number of legislative proposals have been made for expanding the scope of our work on mandates, which would cause a significant diversion of resources from our basic work. As for the Congressional Accountability Act, CBO used an estimated two full-time equivalent workers and $320,000 to assure compliance in fiscal year 1996. No additional staff or funds were provided for that purpose. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, we estimate that a similar level of effort will be required. That cost is also being absorbed. Of course, estimating how much it will cost annually to comply with the Act beyond 1996 is extremely difficult. Mr. Chairman, no agency is more keenly aware than CBO of the Congress's intention to balance the budget and downsize the Federal Government, including the legislative branch. However, maintaining a strong analytic capability in the Congressional Budget Office is essential to achieving those goals. Our request is for less than is necessary to maintain our budget at its current level of services. It is a prudent budget in which we also absorb more than 50 percent of our mandatory pay and benefit increases with reductions. We do believe, however, that our requested increase of 1.9 percent would allow us to continue to serve the Congress at the level it has come to expect. Thank you. I would be happy to address any questions you may have. [The information follows:] [Pages 239 - 271--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much for summarizing. The request is for a 1.9 percent increase. You said that you would be cutting $542,000 below 1997 in other areas. That was administrative, data processing, and where? Ms. O'Neill. Right. Essentially we would postpone some purchases of equipment, and with respect to publishing expenses and disseminating expenses, we expect those in 1998 to be lower than 1997, simply because 1997 is going to be a very heavy year. We had to push a lot of the reports that we would have ordinarily put out in 1996 into 1997, because we were so overwhelmed with work in 1996. Mr. Walsh. Well, we asked you to do it; right? Ms. O'Neill. That is true. Mr. Walsh. Just a couple of policy questions, if I may. In the House rules this year, we added a requirement for the Joint Committee on Taxation to undertake dynamic scoring of certain tax bills. Do you expect a similar requirement for spending bills? ``dynamic'' estimates Ms. O'Neill. It is very hard to say. I guess if the idea gains prominence, we could be asked to do similar types of analysis for an education bill or some kind of infrastructure bill--highway construction or something of that sort. So it is possible. But I would like to point out that we have over the years provided that type of information for major kinds of legislation. We did that for the various health cost initiatives that came up in 1993, including the President's health care bill that had wide-ranging consequences. We were asked to look at these consequences and we did so. We did that also for the NAFTA legislation, and we have done it for the consequences of budget deficit reduction itself. The fiscal dividend that we estimate is the result of an estimate that takes account of dynamic feedback effects. So we have been working on dynamic estimates, although one might not call it by the colorful name of ``dynamic.'' But that is essentially what they are. Mr. Walsh. I am curious: I know you are the director; I don't know how involved you would get in a study like the long- term budget impact study that you mentioned. Other than the obvious impacts of an aging population, my generation, on medicare and Social Security, what sorts of other interesting impacts, major or minor, did your folks see when they did that study--budgetary impacts? a two-sided push Ms. O'Neill. The budgetary impacts cover many programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and generally services for the elderly. In addition to that, on the revenue side, we are benefiting from the baby-boom generation, because its members are in their prime working years and constitute a large section of the taxpaying public. They are going to be moving away from the taxpayer situation and becoming retirees. They are followed by much smaller population cohorts, so we are simultaneously experiencing a dwindling labor force. Thus, we are being faced with a two-sided push. Mr. Walsh. I was curious about possible construction, Federally-funded construction--road construction, airport, whatever. This is really difficult identifying, but what other sorts of impacts might there be? changes in savings Ms. O'Neill. Just generally in the economy, because of the demographic change itself, there will be different demands for services. Also, compositional changes in the population have an effect on savings. The elderly population tends to be dissavers, because in retirement they rely on income from their accumulated wealth. We will have a much smaller population in the working and saving ages, and that, of course, leads to economic problems associated with a low savings rate. So we will be faced with various economic problems. Our dynamic estimates show the effects of population changes on the budget deficit, and how you get a vicious cycle. Once you start getting accumulated deficits, if nothing is done to change any of the policies we would have growing deficits, which lead to higher interest rates, and so we start into this cycle. Those effects of the budget itself would be detrimental to the economy. Mr. Walsh. We are going to have to deal with this issue of entitlement reform sooner than later. the cost of inaction Ms. O'Neill. Yes, because it is very difficult to try to do something once the population has already reached retirement age. Once the problem becomes very obvious to everybody, it is going to be very late to do anything about it. The cost and the pain of doing something about it at that point will be high. Mr. Walsh. It is kind of like trying to save for your kids' college education once they get to high school. You can't do it. Mr. Serrano? Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have a couple of questions. I am trying to ask this question in a way that doesn't ask you to comment on what happens on the House Floor during debate. But I am trying to understand: on the unfunded mandates issue, you only act if asked to offer an opinion; you don't volunteer information. cbo's mandate Ms. O'Neill. It is not a question of volunteering. CBO is required by legislation, when a bill is reported out of committee, to provide not only an estimate of the budget costs, but an estimate of state and local costs; and the state and local costs can be subject to a point of order. With respect to the private sector, we are also required to provide an estimate of the costs of a piece of legislation to the private sector. Mr. Serrano. This information you put together goes to the appropriate committees before we get to the Floor? Ms. O'Neill. Yes. Mr. Serrano. The reason I am asking this is, and I say this with respect and not being sarcastic in any way, but my dear colleague and friend, Duke Cunningham, and I got into some debate along with Mr. Rohrabacher about identifying undocumented children in the schools. My argument was that that is an unfunded mandate, because it will cost California, according to their school system, anywhere from $5 to $15 per child to try to find out who was an illegal alien. That did not score any points for me on the Floor. So what is the procedure by which someone would have said, oh, hold it, yes, he is correct, California did say that--and New York--said it was $12 to $15 per child? I remember when we were having that debate, it was my word against his, and he didn't agree, and the bill went on. So at what point does someone say no, Serrano, you are totally wrong on this, or since you say it is mandated by law now, I didn't see anyone saying I was right or wrong at that point? [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] unfunded mandates Question. Two years ago, CBO was given additional responsibilities to make cost estimates on legislation that included unfunded mandates. How many bills have required actual cost estimates? How many staff are assigned to this workload? Answer. In 1996, CBO transmitted to the Congress 718 intergovernmental and 673 private-sector mandate cost statements. Among the proposals analyzed, 69 contained intergovernmental mandates and 91 included private-sector mandates. Of those, 11 intergovernmental and 38 private-sector mandates had costs exceeding the thresholds established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. CBO's fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 budgets assume 20 work years of staff effort for unfunded mandates work. In carrying out its new responsibilities under the Act last year, however, CBO used an estimated 24 work years of staff effort. As a result, the levels of effort provided by CBO's 1997 and 1998 budgets could prove too low, although we expect the level of effort to fall somewhat after the first year. CBO's appropriation for 1996 provided funds for 13 additional staff positions, and we reallocated an additional 11 staff years of effort from other work. Originally, we estimated that we would need 25 work years of staff effort to carry out our new duties, based on an assumption that we would have to prepare 550 intergovernmental and 550 private-sector mandate analyses. Question. Before the unfunded mandates workload was imposed, CBO did estimates of the costs of the impact of legislation on state and local governments. Are you still doing those separately, or have you integrated that work with this new workload? Answer. CBO is no longer separately providing estimates of the impact of federal legislation on state and local governments, but has integrated that work into its requirements under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act made a number of changes that affected the range and the stature of CBO's state and local bill cost estimates. The act lowered the threshold for cost estimates of intergovernmental mandates to $50 million from $200 million. It also established a point of order against a bill if a CBO intergovernmental mandate statement is not provided to the Congress before a floor vote. Before the enactment of the law, CBO's state and local cost estimates were only advisory. (Although the Act does not specifically require CBO to analyze the cost of mandates in appropriation bills, a point of order would lie against legislative provisions in such bills, or amendments to such bills, that increase the direct costs of intergovernmental mandates, but do not have the appropriate CBO statement.) Because the act narrowly defines mandates, however, the range of CBO's analysis of the impact of a bill on state and local governments is more limited than in its previous work. In order to be responsive to the needs of federal and state and local officials, CBO has typically included more than just the required information in its statements about unfunded mandates. An example of such additional information would be analysis identifying any additional grants conditions contained in a bill--which can have a significant impact upon state and local government operations--even though such a change would not be considered a mandate under the Act. Finally, CBO is required, when requested, to assist committees by preparing studies of legislative proposals containing intergovernmental mandates. As directed by the Act, CBO has established several advisory panels of experts on intergovernmental mandates and consults with them regularly. Question. For the record, provide a staffing and cost estimate workload comparison before and after the unfunded mandate duties. Answer. In fiscal year 1996, CBO used 52 full-time equivalent positions to prepare approximately 2,021 cost estimates for federal bills and intergovernmental and private sector mandates. In fiscal year 1995, the year before the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was carried out, CBO used 28 full-time equivalent positions to prepare 948 federal and state and local bill cost estimates. defining a mandate Ms. O'Neill. Internally we go through a process of determining whether a provision is a mandate or not. We have various kinds of rules. We could address that in more detail: Jim. Mr. Blum. The definition of a mandate in the Unfunded Mandates Act is as follows: first, a mandate carries an enforceable duty and it has some other subqualifications as well. A mandate is also related to a specific new legislative proposal that is being considered, as opposed to what may already exist under Federal or State law. So the focus of the analysis that we do on a new Federal legislative proposal is, first of all, ``Does this impose a Federal mandate?'' And sometimes we find that is not an easy question to answer; there are a lot of uncertainties. The law itself is not all that specific in giving precise guidelines for answering that question; as to whether or not a Federal mandate exists. We spent a lot of time during that first year just going over all the many different proposals that came up. We tried, by the end of the year, to have a consistent set of criteria that we could apply. With respect to the very specific example that you are citing, I am afraid I am not familiar with the context. Mr. Serrano. Right. I don't want to stay on this subject too much, but let me just kind of break it down to you as I see it. There are obviously situations that are clearly mandates. If you say every child in this country must have three textbooks on science on their desk, someone could easily get up and say, ``Who is going to pay for that?'' You have now mandated every local school district--every State--to have these three books on their desk. But if you say any child who is an undocumented alien cannot have access to textbooks, for argument's sake, that child has to be identified, and that incurs a cost. No one during that debate said that there was information from you whether it was or was not an unfunded mandate. I suspect that we are going to see more and more of that debate as we continue to deal with this whole immigration issue. Mr. Blum. Our general counsel just handed me the Unfunded Mandate Law, and, as I indicated, the precise definition is that it would impose--with certain exceptions--an enforceable duty to be funded by State, local, or tribal governments. It turns out one of the definitions includes elimination of amounts authorized for the control of borders by the Federal Government or reimbursement to state, local, or tribal governments for the net cost associated with illegal, deportable, or excludable aliens, including court mandated, census related, and so on. Mr. Serrano. Okay. Ms. O'Neill. We could look into that and let you know about it. [Clerk's note.--The following has been supplied for the record.] [Pages 277 - 278--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. I certainly don't want to take this time to carry on more of those debates, but please understand that this is an issue that is not going to go away, and there will be many people on one side of the issue who will argue that any time you set this up, you have to identify who is not eligible, and when you do that, there is a local cost involved. Mr. Blum. That is a legitimate concern, and I think we could make an effort to provide information about what costs there might be. Mr. Serrano. One last question. You said that you could live or operate with a reduction in equipment. purchase of equipment Ms. O'Neill. Just postponing the purchase of new equipment. Mr. Serrano. This is in the area of computers? Ms. O'Neill. Computer equipment, yes. Mr. Serrano. Just curious. Everyone else is saying just the opposite, we have to speed into this new age. Are you not speeding? Are you there already, or do you just love pencils? Ms. O'Neill. We have over the years acquired equipment that serves us pretty well right now. We obviously couldn't do this indefinitely, but we are able to do it this year. Mr. Serrano. It is a great answer. Mr. Blum. I might add that we have kept up with the computer age. We have kept up with the basic technology, and by doing so, we have been able to lower the cost of computers in our budget dramatically. When you look at the figures over the years, computer costs used to be a very significant chunk of our total budget resources. Now it is down to less than 10 percent. I think at one time it was as high as 25 percent. Furthermore, it has actually fallen in nominal dollars. Ten years ago, we were spending two or three times the amount of money for which we are now budgeted. So we have not only been able to keep up with technology, but to take advantage of the falling costs to control our own budget. Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Cunningham. state and local information Mr. Cunningham. I hadn't planned on asking any questions, but I will ask. Would it help if we asked for a specific unfunded mandate, if we provide you with the studies that we are taking the statistics from? For example, in the debate my colleague was talking about, I spoke of California statistics only, not national statistics. For example, we have about 400,000 illegals in K through 12 in the State of California. Schooling costs around $5,000 a child. Simple math tells you that it amounts to about $2 billion a year in unfunded mandates. The Gallegly amendment that we were discussing, though, gave the States the right to handle their own education programs. We were trying to not make it an unfunded mandate. We also used statistics from our penal system at various times when we deport felons. There are normally about 18,000 to 22,000 illegals just in California prisons. That is documented. The point being if we ask you something and we have ready statistics based on science, would you like us to provide those to you, or do you just go out and collect them? Ms. O'Neill. We do have a group that devotes its time to state and local issues, and they have contact points in the various states. I guess it always helps to have additional information. Mr. Blum. We would make our own independent verification, but, yes, it would be helpful. Mr. Cunningham. I would expect that. I was very careful during that debate not to dispute national statistics, because I didn't know them. But I did know from various studies in California statistics. Mr. Serrano. You know the headline: ``CBO Skewed By Cunningham.'' Ms. O'Neill. I can send you a note with the names of the people who would be directly concerned about this at CBO. Maybe your staff could contact them. Mr. Cunningham. It will be another issue this year, and I will be happy to provide direct studies that will help you to help us. Ms. Del Balzo. We do add a section in our cost estimates of unfunded mandates that is entitled, ``Other Impacts on State, Local and Tribal Governments.'' Even though the cost might not fall within the strict limits of the definition of the term ``unfunded mandates,'' we try to provide information to the Congress if there is other information out there about costs. Mr. Serrano. It is important, what Mr. Cunningham said. Maybe you should consider, as you said before, just opening up this whole area, because this is going to be more and more a point of dispute. As we set out to reform our immigration system and to deal with undocumented people who are already here in this country, it will require, in my opinion and the opinion of many people, checking people's status, and bills that require that, directly or indirectly, could be considered unfunded mandates. Certainly checking status requires local costs. Maybe that is something we should really concentrate on, the fact that is going to be coming up more and more every day. Mr. Blum. We hear you. Ms. O'Neill. The issues concerning unfunded mandates and the determinations of what is or isn't, as well as what the costs will be, can be extraordinarily complicated, which is one of the reasons that we always say that we are somewhat uneasy as to whether we can handle it with our current level of resources. We are never totally certain, because it could become very complicated and absorb a lot of CBO staff. Mr. Blum. If I may, Dr. O'Neill referred to this as a document to be made available. This is for information only, and not for the record. I think it would be particularly helpful. It is our experience with the Unfunded Mandates Act for that first year. It gives you a full explanation of how we view the way it works, what we did, and the kinds of issues we had to grapple with. Mr. Serrano. You never determined that profound comment that the Constitution was an unfunded mandate? Mr. Walsh. Since I opened this up to broader issues, I will just do it once more. The President, as I understand it, has agreed to accept CBO's scoring of his budget when we get to the final negotiations between the Congress and the President. You did an analysis of the President's budget. Can you tell us in general terms how that differed from the OMB? analysis of the President's budget Ms. O'Neill. We haven't completed our analysis of the President's budget. We will actually be finished in a few weeks. We do have a preliminary assessment--just the overall number--and by the year 2002, we show about a $50 billion higher deficit. Mr. Walsh. That is an accumulated number? That is in 2002 a $50 billion? Mr. Walsh. No, that is just in the year 2002. Mr. Walsh. OMB shows it as balanced? Ms. O'Neill. OMB projects a slight surplus. Mr. Walsh. There is a $50 billion difference, basically. Mr. Blum. It is actually more than $50 billion in terms of starting points. But since they show a $17 billion surplus, there is some room in terms of reaching a balance in the year 2002. The projection points out the differences in our comparable baselines or starting points for analyzing the policy changes. It is something on the order of $66 billion. So if you take away the $17 billion surplus in the President's budget, that leaves roughly a $50 billion hole that would have to be filled under CBO's economic and other estimating assumptions. That is before we have actually analyzed the effects of the President's policy proposals. Traditionally, we do differ to some extent with the Administration in pricing out the effect of their policies. For example, in reducing Medicare costs or other changes in current law it might add to the size of the hole by the year 2002. Mr. Walsh. Is the difference primarily on the spending side or the revenue estimate side? Ms. O'Neill. The baseline differences are primarily on the revenue side. Mr. Blum. They are actually evenly divided almost. Ms. O'Neill. Oh. Okay. I stand corrected. Mr. Blum. Let me give you a table, Mr. Chairman, that compares the baselines for CBO and OMB. CBO and OMB baselines Ms. O'Neill. That is right, our Medicare and Medicaid baselines are the same. I was confused for a moment. But Social Security would show a difference, because we assume a somewhat higher growth rate in inflation, in the Consumer Price Index. Thus, our cost-of-living adjustment would be higher than theirs. Mr. Blum. All of the differences here can be explained by the differences in our economic assumptions, even though--when you look at the very first table in the packet that I gave you--it compares the basic economic assumptions for the Administration and CBO, and a lot of those are quite small in the realm of economic forecasts. They do loom large in terms of what the budgetary impact can be, and they would more than explain the differences in our two baselines or starting points for budget planning. The last page of this is just a summary of the policy changes that the President's budget proposed. Those are all OMB-Administration numbers. It is those numbers that we will be concentrating on in our own analysis over the next several weeks to see if we can come up with approximately the same numbers or identify what differences we might have about the impact of the policy proposals. Mr. Walsh. Any other questions? [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] Legislative Information System Question. To what extent is CBO contributing to the development of the legislative information system being worked on by CRS, the Clerk of House and others? Answer. CBO is closely coordinating its efforts to enhance the electronic distribution of its products with those who are developing the Legislative Information System (LIS) for the Congress. A committee from CBO composed of representatives of its information systems unit and the legislative branch interagency coordination group has met with the technical staff of the legislative branch who are developing LIS, as well as with the appropriate representatives from our sister legislative branch agencies. That coordination will ensure that the electronic distribution of CBO's products will be fully integrated with the LIS when both systems are completed. Question. What CBO reports and other products will be added to the information system? Will these be available for the House and Senate computers to access from our desktops? Will there be public access? Answer. By the end of the current fiscal year, we hope to have all of CBO's work products available electronically. As with CBO products that are currently available electronically, distribution will be via the Internet. Following the appropriate Congressional distribution, and in keeping with its legislative mandate, CBO will make all of its products available to the public. projected legislative bill contributions to a balanced budget Question. As you know, during the last two years, legislative branch spending has been reduced by about $248 million (outlay basis). We calculated that a similar and proportionate reduction applied to the entire federal budget would yield a balanced federal budget. Would you perform an analysis of that for us, using the entire federal budget as the base--not just the discretionary portion of the budget. In other words, has the legislative branch budget contributed its fair share to the goal of balancing the budget by the year 2002? Also, what level of spending could the 1998 legislative appropriations bill support and still be consistent with the overall balanced budget goal? Please work with our staff on that. Answer. The $248 million reduction in legislative branch outlays during the last two years is derived from CBO scorekeeping tabulations of actions by the 104th Congress on non-emergency discretionary appropriations. As shown in the attached table, estimated legislative branch outlays for fiscal year 1995 at the end of the 103rd Congress were $2,380 million. Estimated outlays for fiscal year 1997 at the end of the 104th Congress were $2,132 million, or $248 million less than for 1995. This represents a 10.4 percent reduction and is the largest percentage reduction in outlays among all of the appropriation subcommittees. One way of judging the relative size of the reduction in legislative branch outlays is to compare it to the reduction that would have been required in all outlays in order to have a balanced budget in 1997. Total outlays in fiscal year 1995 were $1,516 billion. Total revenues for 1997 under current laws are estimated to be $1,507 billion. If total outlays could have been reduced by just $9 billion between 1995 and 1997, or by 0.6 percent, the budget would be balanced in 1997. Thus, it could be said that the reduction in legislative branch outlays was more than necessary to achieve budgetary balance if other outlays had been reduced from 1995 levels by less than 1 percent. Looking ahead to 2002, revenues are projected to increase to $1,871 billion, an increase of 24 percent from the estimated 1997 level, or an average annual increase of 4.4 percent. To reach balance in 2002, the growth in total outlays would have to be constrained to an average annual increase of 2.8 percent. If all outlays were similarly constrained, legislative branch outlays could increase over the next five years and be consistent with the balanced budget goal. The amount of increase would depend on what actions are taken to constrain other outlays. Also, if tax cuts are included in the budget plan for achieving balance by 2002, the growth in total outlays would have to be reduced further. [Page 284--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Reprogramming Requests Question. For the record, please supply all reprogrammings requested last year, and their disposition. Answer. CBO made no requests to reprogram funds in fiscal year 1996. Mr. Walsh. All right. Thank you very much. It is nice to have you with us today. Dr. O'Neill. Mr. Serrano, I believe that I grew up in a district that must have been adjacent to yours, because I grew up in the Bronx. On 182nd Street, between Jerome and the university. Mr. Serrano. That is mine. Dr. O'Neill. I went to PS-91. Mr. Serrano. The Architect also grew up in our district. We are two for two today. Mr. Latham. Mr. Greigg here is a former Member from my district. And also the former mayor of Sioux City, which is the biggest town in my district. Mr. Greigg. Thank you, Congressman. Mr. Latham. I am not sure if that is good or bad. Mr. Walsh. I don't represent any of my constituents here. Mr. Greigg. The Congressman represents 30 districts. When I was here, I represented 18. ---------- Tuesday, February 11, 1997. OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE WITNESSES VIRGINIA SEITZ, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS RICKY SILBERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DENNIS DUFFY, GENERAL COUNSEL JAMES STEPHENS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE HOUSE PAM TALKIN, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE SENATE BETH HUGHES-BROWN, BUDGET OFFICER ELIZABETH HACK, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL Mr. Walsh. Now we will take up the budget submission of the Office of Compliance. This office was established by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. We have with us today Executive Director Mrs. Ricky Silberman, welcome, and some of her staff members. There is also a five member part-time Board of Directors. The Chairman of the board is Mr. Glen Nager--am I pronouncing that correctly?--a Washington attorney at law. Mr. Nager has notified the subcommittee he will not be in attendance today. Did he send a board member to pinch hit? Ms. Seitz. Virginia Seitz. Good morning. budget request Mr. Walsh. The fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill provided $2,609,000 to this office. The budget before us is $2,600,000. This includes a staffing level of 19 full-time equivalent positions. Madam Director, your budget has been printed in part one and given to the Members of the subcommittee. Your statement has been given to the Members. If you would like to introduce any other members of your staff, please do so, and then please give us your statement or summarize for the record. Ms. Silberman. Thank you very much. As my statement will detail, we have four statutory appointees under the CAA. With us today are Dennis Duffy, who is the General Counsel, Pam Talkin, the Deputy Director for the Senate, and Jim Stephens, the Deputy Director for the House, and also our Budget Officer, Beth Brown, and Elizabeth Hack, our Deputy General Counsel. Mr. Walsh. We are delighted to have you. Ms. Silberman. I think we are going to begin with Board Member Seitz, who is going to read Mr. Nager's very short statement. Statement of the Chairman of the Board Ms. Seitz. As a member of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance, we thank you for the opportunity to join Ricky Silberman, Executive Director, in testifying in support of the fiscal year 1998 budget request. A year ago when we appeared before this subcommittee, the office had only just officially opened, and we noted then the invaluable assistance given to this agency by your staff, and we would again like to express our appreciation, particularly to Ed Lombard and Tom Martin, for their help and support throughout the year to the Executive Director and to Beth Brown, our Budget Officer. Last year, Glen Nager testified that his most important responsibility as the Chair of the Board had been to recruit the very talented group of individuals who lead the office. In introducing the four statutory appointees to the committee, he paid tribute to the remarkable job they had done in six short months under very difficult circumstances. The year that has followed has proved no less challenging. The considerable accomplishments of the full first year of operations are described in detail in our written testimony. But I would like to take this opportunity to point out that this record is all the more remarkable considering it was accomplished with less than two-thirds of the resources and people that we had projected would be necessary in the early discussions held with the staff of the Senate and the House leadership, as well as with the two appropriations committees. The Office's fiscal year 1998 appropriation request is again based on the FTE total of 19 employees, including the 4 statutory appointees, far below the 30 originally discussed. This coming year marks an important change of focus for the Board of Directors. Up until now the Board, which, again, is composed of five lawyers experienced in labor and employment law who serve on a part-time basis, has spent the lion's share of its time on rulemaking. As of December 31, 1996, all of the regulations mandated by the CAA have now been adopted and are either in place or are awaiting Congressional approval. With that important initial phase completed, the Board can now turn to its core function, which is adjudication. Several appeals are now pending before the Board, and we would like to thank the Chairman and the committee for providing theslot in last year's budget for a solicitor for the Board. Our new solicitor has been at work since the middle of November, and with her able assistance, we look forward to providing a prompt resolution of these appeals and any other appeals that come before us. Now I will turn it over to Ricky Silberman, Executive Director. [The information follows:] [Page 290--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Ms. Silberman's Statement Ms. Silberman. It is a pleasure to again be here and echo the words of our Chair in thanking this committee and its staff, particularly Ed Lombard and Tom Martin, for their support. The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 applies for the first time 11 labor and employment laws to the legislative branch. To implement, administer, and enforce the CAA, Congress created the Office of Compliance, a unique administrative agency with a unique structure and responsibilities. And today I would like to just briefly summarize how the work of the Office and the Board has been organized in order to fulfill the important promises of the CAA. First, let me turn to the Board and thank Virginia Seitz for pinch-hitting for Glen Nager, the Chair of the Board. Member Seitz and Chair Nager and their three colleagues serve on a part-time basis and were appointed by the bipartisan leadership of both Houses of Congress. Under the CAA, this Board, composed of five experienced labor and employment lawyers, has responsibility for promulgating regulations, conducting mandated studies and reports, considering adjudicative appeals arising from complaints filed under the CAA, and other specifically statutorily designated decisions. The CAA assigns operational responsibilities to fourstatutory officers who were appointed by the Chair, as I indicated earlier, the General Counsel and the Deputies for the House and the Senate, and the four of us, together, are responsible for, among other things under the statute, the alternative dispute resolution and adjudicative systems, the education and information function, the liaison with the House and Senate, and developing recommendations to the Board for substantive regulations. Additionally, the CAA assigns responsibility to the Executive Director for promulgating procedural regulations and to the General Counsel for the inspection and prosecutorial functions arising under OSHA, ADA, and the labor management relations section of the CAA. Thus, Congress has assigned certain responsibilities to the Board, certain responsibilities to the Executive Director, and certain responsibilities to the General Counsel. One of the great challenges in organizing and staffing this Office has been to keep those functions and responsibilities separate which the statute and principles of constitutional and administrative law deem must be kept separate, while at the same time maintaining the flexibility to get the job done with as few full-time staff as possible. In this respect, let me follow up on just one point made by the Chair. Although the Office is operating with far fewer people than originally thought necessary, we have promulgated hundreds of pages of regulations, researched and written reports and studies, developed and disseminated voluminous educational materials, and have met every statutory obligation imposed by the CAA in a timely manner. This record is possible because both the General Counsel and I have recruited and hired staff who not only have the requisite qualifications, but also the talent and versatility to perform the various functions mandated by the CAA. Thus, the Chair and his four dedicated colleagues on the Board, serving on a part-time basis, the four statutory appointees and the staff of 15, have worked superbly together, while at the same time being mindful that the statute requires the complete separation of the alternative dispute resolution, adjudication, and prosecutorial functions. I should add here that the decision to outsource mediators and hearing officers was based on these principles of separation, cost-effectiveness, as well as the necessity of having their great expertise and experience available to us on an as-needed basis. Our written testimony describes these functions and accomplishments in detail, but I just want to give you a brief snapshot of how well the alternative dispute resolution and adjudicative systems, the core functions of the office which went into effect on January 23, 1996, are working. During the period between January 23 and December 31, the office received some 1,600 requests for information, either by phone or from people walking in. Now, the vast majority of these inquiries did, the people who made these inquiries, did not find it necessary to go very far further in the process. As of December 31, only 95 formal requests for counseling were filed. You should understand that we mark the beginning of a case by when a formal request is filed. Most of these were resolved satisfactorily before a request for mediation was entertained. We only had 14 subsequent requests for mediation filed. Eight of these resulted in signed settlements, and pursuant to the CAA, as Executive Director, I approved two monetary settlements for a total of $19,200. (Those settlements were with employing offices of the House, and pursuant to House rules, the House Oversight Committee approved those settlements.) In short, of the 95 actual cases filed during this period, nearly half were resolved early in the process. Four hearings involving a total of 14 cases were held by hearing officers drawn from a roster of retired and senior status judges in the District of Columbia. All four are now on appeal before the Board, and as indicated in the Chair's testimony, we expect that the appeals process will move forward expeditiously. The education and information program continues to fulfill the foundational CAA principle that a well-informed and regulated community ensures compliance in the most cost- effective way. We are grateful to the House Oversight Committee and others in the House for their cooperation in ensuring the timely dissemination of materials and for facilitating the inspections for compliance with OSHA and the ADA mandated in the CAA. Copies of those reports, as well as the two studies which were submitted to Congress pursuant to sections 102(b) and 230 are attached to our written testimony, and I would like at this time to submit them for the record as well as our statements this morning. General Counsel Duffy, Member Seitz and I are here to answer your questions. Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much. [The information follows:] [Pages 293 - 305--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Is there anyone else who needs to make a statement at this time? Ms. Silberman. No. board of directors Mr. Walsh. Thank you for your testimony. Let me just ask a couple of questions that occurred to me along the way. The Board, the five-member Board, your primary role initially was to get this department set up, choose the people, get them in place; is that correct? Ms. Seitz. The four statutory appointees are appointed actually by the Chair with the approval of the rest of the Board. That was our first task, and, indeed, we took that on right away. Then we began the regulation writing process. Mr. Walsh. Is that complete? Ms. Seitz. The regulation writing process is now complete. Mr. Walsh. So your role now, is it to participate in the arbitration of these cases? Do you have a role there or not? Ms. Seitz. We are essentially the appellate body. Mr. Walsh. So after they see the hearing officer? Ms. Seitz. Yes. Appeals from the decisions of the hearing officer come up to the Board. Decisions of ours are appealable in turn to the Federal circuit. Mr. Walsh. At what point do you personally intervene, Ms. Silberman? Ms. Silberman. I personally only intervene by appointing a hearing officer and by approving any settlements which are entered into. Also, as the chief operating officer, I oversee the entire operation. Mr. Walsh. So your role is primarily the operational officer of the department? Ms. Silberman. That is correct. I also have other decisional responsibilities. As I mentioned, the procedural rules are promulgated by me and approved by the Board, but generally my authority is in operational matters. It is certainly not policy-making. Mr. Walsh. I am just trying to envision the whittling process. You probably had a lot of initial calls from people trying to find out what the idea of compliance was, so a lot of calls from Member offices, committee staffs and so on, trying to figure out how to comply? dispute resolution process Ms. Silberman. That is correct. The vast majority of the calls that we got, of the 1,600 calls that we have logged in, are requests for how to comply, requests on the part of employees as to what their rights might be. As I say, of those, there were only 95 formal requests for counseling. These calls are taken by trained counselors. Mr. Walsh. Those are taken--once they are realized they are going to require additional attention, the person that handles that call passes it on to the counselor? Ms. Silberman. All of the calls are taken by a trainedcounselor. A receptionist logs them in and they are passed on to a counselor, with the exception of those calls regarding OSHA, ADA, or the General Counsel's operation. The counselor spends time talking, finding out what the situation is, trying to resolve the situation at the earliest time--if there is a possible dispute, at the earliest possible point. After the formal request for counseling, and after 30 days of counseling, they receive a notice of a closing of the counseling period, and they then have 15 days to request mediation. At that point, I call a mediator, and we have found it is both enormously cost effective and effective in every other way to use mediators that are not on full-time staff at the office, and we have used an organization called the Center for Dispute Settlement as a first matter, and that is because these are the people that have the most experience with both Federal sector mediation, as well as employment discrimination mediation. They have a large roster of mediators, and I worked closely with them when I was vice chairman of the EEOC and we were trying to set up our alternative dispute resolution process there. Mr. Walsh. You have a contractual relationship with them and they provide you with these hearing officers? Ms. Silberman. They provide us with mediators. Again, of the 14 requests for mediation, 8 were settled to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. It is hard to describe cases in specific numerical terms, because we have different stopping off places. For instance, we can use the end of the fiscal year, or the end of the calendar year, our first year in existence. But it has been my experience that the process is working extremely well. One of the reasons I think the process is working as well as it has, and one of the things that I think that you all would be interested in is that we have had complete, as the CAA requires, complete confidentiality in all of these proceedings and matters under the CAA. There have been no press reports, there have been no reports of any matter, other than in terms of statistics, and that is something we have felt all along is a responsibility that the Congress has imposed on us that is an extraordinary serious one. Both our mediators and hearing officers, as part of our contractual arrangement, sign very stringent confidentiality agreements. Mr. Walsh. The five-member Board, then, would hear those remaining cases that hadn't been resolved though the mutual agreement of the two parties. Ms. Seitz. First, there would actually be a hearing before an administrative law judge. These are the retired judges that Ricky referred to, the former D.C. Superior Court judges, most of them, conducting hearings and taking evidence and issuing a decision. If the employing office or the party decides to appeal that decision, then the case comes up to the board. Mr. Walsh. That is the last resort? Ms. Seitz. Not the last resort, because if either the employing office or plaintiff are dissatisfied with what the Board does, they may appeal and turn to the Federal Circuit Court. Ms. Silberman. I should add, Mr. Chairman, that employees also have the option of going directly to Federal Court, instead of to the Office, for a hearing. The CAA gives them the option of going to Federal Court after the mediation period closes. First, however, they must engage in counseling and mediation. Mr. Walsh. What are the majority of these cases, if you could say? Or are they diverse? Ms. Silberman. They are diverse. They range across the board. The statistics are somewhat skewed because of a one-time matter in which we had several cases right at the beginning that fell under one statute. That is probably not going to happen again. We have a few discrimination cases, a few FLSA cases. Mr. Walsh. FLSA? Ms. Silberman. Fair Labor Standards Act, wage and hour cases. We have a couple under the ADA. Actually, more than a couple under the ADA. They run across the board. It is interesting that the requests for information that we are getting show a very even pattern that, as complicated as this law is, and these are 11 rather diverse statutes in many ways, as complicated as this law is, the questions we are getting really do pretty much run across the board. But I must say the Congress in general, and I think that this is shown in the statistics, is reacting very well to being a regulated community for the first time. Everybody is trying very hard to comply. We have been very pleased with the reaction. [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] Question. How long does it take to process a case? Response. This depends on the stage at which the case is resolved. The counseling period is 30 days. A covered employee may request mediation any time within 15 days after receipt of notice of the end of counseling. (30+15=45) The period for mediation is 30 days, but this may be extended by the Executive Director if jointly requested by the parties. (It has been extended more frequently than not, in our experience.) (45+30=75) If mediation ends without a satisfactory resolution, a complaint may be filed with our Office or a claim may be filed in federal court within 30-90 days after the complainant's receipt of notification of the end of mediation. (75+30 [90]=105 [165]) The Executive Director will appoint a Hearing Officer who will hold a confidential hearing within 60 days. This may be extended to 90 days by the Executive Director for good cause. (105 [165]+60=165 [225]) The hearing may take any length of time. Assuming 5 days. (165 [225]+5=170 [230]) The Hearing Officer's decision must be rendered within 90 days of the end of the hearing. (170 [230]+90=260 [320]) The case may then be appealed to the Board of Directors within 30 days of receipt of the Hearing Officer's decision. Thus, a case which is not resolved at one of the earlier stages will take approximately nine months to a year to reach the appeals stage. This is borne out by the fact that the Office began accepting counseling requests approximately one year ago, and the earliest cases filed with the Office have only just been appealed to the Board. The Board is currently establishing its own internal processes and guidelines to assure that appeals are handled expeditiously, as contemplated by the CAA. Question. How much staff time is spent on each type of case? Response. The breakdown of support staff hours per case or type of case is difficult, as cases were resolved at different stages of the dispute resolution process and varied greatly in the amount of staff time required. For purposes of case management, a ``case'' is defined in Office of Compliance parlance as starting at the point when a formal request for counseling is filed. In addition to professional staff time, large portions of support staff time were devoted to setting up a filing system, writing letters of notification, serving documents, and, once the hearings commenced, serving as part-time hearing clerk, all functions that supported the caseload in general. Managers' time spent training counselors, and supervising and coaching both counselors and support staff is also attributable to the general caseload. In 1996, roughly half of three counselors' time was devoted to disseminating information to over 1600 employees, employing offices, media, and other interested parties, and to counseling the 95 individuals who requested formal counseling. In addition, staff counselors dedicated major portions of their time to other duties including regulations writing, and researching and writing portions of the section 230 and section 102(b) studies. Question. Do you spend more resources on specific employee cases or on more general information and building inspection activities? Response. In FY 1996, more resources were spent on providing general information, building inspection, and other activities of the Office than were spent on specific cases. FY 1996 was an atypical year in many ways. As I have discussed in my earlier testimony, employees could not file formal requests for counseling until January 23, 1996, when the CAA took effect. The time requirements of each stage of case processing resulted in few claimants completing the counseling, mediation, and hearing ``cycle'' in the months we were operational in FY 1996. Costs for the mediation and hearing processes were thus minimal. In FY 1996, we estimate that upwards of one million dollars were spent on the mandated education and information function, the conduct of studies, ADA and OSH inspections, the preparation of regulations under the CAA for Congress' approval, and requests for information from covered employees, employing offices, the media, etc. Far less was directly attributable to filed cases. Dissemination of information is a core function of the Office, whether it is through our formal education and information program itself, or responses to parties who call the Office requesting information on the CAA and the laws it applies. Many potential claimants who are fully apprised of their rights and responsibilities under the CAA at early stages do not go forward to file requests for counseling. Moreover, employing offices requested information to enable them to comply with their responsibilities under the CAA. Question. For the record, provide a comprehensive list of these workload activities, and the estimated staffing time expended for each. Response. Workload activities include the following, with estimates of the amount of staff time that will be allocated to each activity in FY 1998. (Please note that Office of Compliance staff members are required to fulfill multiple functions.) Studies........................................................... 1 Education & Information........................................... 2.5 Inspections/Reports............................................... 3 Regulation Promulgation........................................... .5 Requests for Information.......................................... 3 Counseling........................................................ 1 Mediation......................................................... .5 Hearings.......................................................... 1 Appeals........................................................... 1.5 Administrative/Financial/Clerical................................. 5 Question. The Office of Compliance was tasked to study the application of employment and labor laws to the General Accounting Office, the Government Printing Office, and the Library of Congress. We understand that study is now complete and would like a brief summary of the results. Response. Section 230 of the Congressional Accountability Act required the Board to study the applications of labor and employment laws at the General Accounting Office, the Government Printing Office, and the Library of Congress. Section 230 required the study to evaluate whether the rights, protections, and procedures at the instrumentalities are ``comprehensive and effective.'' The Board evaluated the agencies by analyzing whether the rights, protections, and procedures afforded their employees are as comprehensive and effective as those at Congressional offices pursuant to the CAA. Some general conclusions follow: The Board concluded that, in general, the rights and protections afforded employees of the three agencies are both comprehensive and effective. Some gaps remain, however, and will continue even after the CAA extends additional coverage at GAO and the Library of Congress as of December 30, 1997. Some of the instrumentalities' employees enjoy certain civil service protections outside the scope of the CAA. However, at GPO, neither the Worker Adjustment and Notification Act nor the Employee Polygraph Protection Act applies. Due to the multiplicity of procedural processes in effect at the three instrumentalities, some employees have more procedural options than Congressional employees, and others have fewer. For example, Library of Congress employees may pursue a complaint of discrimination through procedures administered by the Library, but they have not right to appeal administratively, to either the EEOC or the Office of Compliance. In addition, in the area of occupational safety and health, GPO is not subject to inspection and enforcement by any outside agency or office. Jury trials are not available to employees of the instrumentalities to the same extent as employees covered under the CAA. In addition, although GPO employees have rights and administrative remedies, they have little in the way of judicial remedies under two laws--the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. GAO has statutory latitude to issue regulations establishing, and limiting, substantive rights of its employees in certain areas, including labor-management relations. Question. Also, your budget mentions reimbursing the Library of Congress for cleaning, security, and manual labor. How much is in this budget to reimburse the Library of Congress for such services? Response. With regard to manual labor, the Interagency Agreement (IAG) between the Office and the Library reads as follows: ``The Office of Compliance may request manual labor on an as needed basis. These services will be reimbursed to [the Library's] Integrated Support Services based on the applicable Wage-Grade rate. . . . ``The Office of Compliance shall provide the Library with an annual reimbursement . . . for the services described above. In addition, the Office shall provide reimbursement to the Library for any manual labor services requested.'' We believe that this arrangement is a very cost effective means for the Office to fulfill the need for intermittent manual labor. We have requested $3,000 for this purpose in the FY 1998 budget request. With regard to building security, the Library is charging an overhead rate of 21.4 percent of the direct expenses for services delineated in the smaller of the two IAG's we have entered into with the Library. (We have two IAG's, one for purely administrative purposes, in the amount of $9,888. For the second IAG, which is for payroll, accounting and disbursement services in the amount of $30,000, the Library is charging no overhead.) Thus, we are paying approximately $1740 for building security this year, and have projected the same amount in FY 1998. The Office is also paying for custodial services at a cost of $4,500 per year, based on the square footage we occupy, and mail delivery at a cost of $1,325 per year. The same amounts have been requested in FY 1998. review of capitol complex buildings Mr. Walsh. Good. There is one item in your budget for an architectural consultant, $15,000. Why couldn't you go see the Architect of the Capitol on that? Ms. Silberman. I am going to turn that over to General Counsel, Mr. Duffy. Mr. Walsh. He does have some expertise, I am told. Mr. Duffy. Well, the problem is, quite simply, in the case of an occupational safety and health complaint that involves the services of an industrial hygienist. There may be disputes about the Architect of the Capitol, who is technically a defendant during that investigation. There is some dispute. I have to satisfy myself independently that the problem that the Architect of the Capitol says isn't there, is or isn't there. It is like the old saying, trust everyone, but cut the cards. It may be that there is not a problem, but independently I have an obligation to determine whether, in fact, there is a safety and health hazard. Mr. Walsh. So this is a function or a requirement for evidence that you would need to go outside and get a nonbiased opinion on? Mr. Duffy. Yes. Actually, it is more of a fail-safe. It is not that we actually contemplate that this is going to happen. For the most part we have been having quite a bit of cooperation with the Architect of the Capitol, and in the few matters we are currently involved in, there hasn't been much in the way of disputes about the evidence, if you will. But essentially over the course of a year, it is entirely possible that we might get into a situation where bringing in an independent industrial hygienist might be necessary. It might be possible, and I am going to be meeting with the Architect of the Capitol on this issue, but in some cases the Architect may bring in a third party or independent IH and actually pay for it out of their budget. But this is more a potential, rather than something that we actually expect to use on a regular basis. Mr. Walsh. Your office inspected the Capitol and all the office buildings for compliance with OSHA and ADA. Can you give us an idea of how that analysis came out and for the record provide us with a summary of the status of the buildings? Mr. Duffy. Yes. As I understand, the actual reports have been earlier submitted as part of the record. I will try to summarize briefly the major findings of both inspections. As you know, the law requires me to inspect on a regular basis, and at least once every Congress, all of the facilities of the legislative branch. I really didn't have much idea of how vast that was until I actually walked it. [A Summary of Findings and question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:] As required by section 215(e)(2)(B) of the CAA, the Safety and Health Inspection Report includes as Appendix V a summary of each hazard discovered during the inspection, identifies the employing office responsible for correction, and assesses the level of risk to health and safety associated with the hazards identified. I will summarize them extremely briefly below. Safety and Health Reports cannon house office building Sprinkler project should be completed for the remainder of the building. There were insufficient electrical receptacles to handle the various power needs of individual offices. In the office/ storage areas on the fifth floor, power cords were draped or interlaced through the metal screening for the storage area, which presented an electrical hazard. Numerous offices had large ripples and some tears in the carpeting which could present a tripping hazard. Several offices had extremely narrow aisles and limited emergency egress routes. Several areas were noted where soot or dust has been discharged from the heating and air conditioning system. The belts and pulleys, sprockets and chains, and electrical connections in elevator control rooms in the buildings were insufficiently guarded. The direction of exits in this building were not always clearly marked. ford house office building Throughout building, numerous examples were noted where the carpeting had bunched or ripped, creating a tripping hazard. Several areas were noted where soot or dust has been discharged from the heating and air conditioning system. A few areas in the building were not protected by a sprinkler system. Three 55-gallon drums of a flammable thinner were improperly stored in the back of Electrical substation A in the basement. The lock on the substation door was broken and needed repair. longworth house office building In many offices there were insufficient electrical receptacles for the equipment used. Several areas were noted where soot or dust has been discharged from the heating and air conditioning system. In a limited number of cases, access to the electrical cabinets was blocked by difficult to move furniture or other equipment. The belts and pulleys, sprockets and chains, and electrical connections in elevator control rooms in the buildings were insufficiently guarded. Some portions of the building were not protected by sprinklers. o'neill house office building The belts and pulleys, sprockets and chains, and electrical connections in elevator control rooms in the buildings were insufficiently guarded. Numerous offices had large ripples and some tears in the carpeting which could present a tripping hazard. In many offices there were insufficient electrical receptacles for the equipment used. Several areas were noted where exit signing was confusing or absent. rayburn house office building Members' offices in this building are not currently protected by an automatic sprinkler system. In many offices there were insufficient electrical receptacles for the equipment used. Several areas were noted where soot or dust has been discharged from the heating and air conditioning system. In a limited number of cases, access to the electrical cabinets was blocked by difficult to move furniture or other equipment. The belts and pulleys, sprockets and chains, and electrical connections in elevator control rooms in the buildings were insufficiently guarded. A number of shop areas located where flammables in storage exceeded permissible limits. In at least one shop oxygen and acetylene cylinders were improperly stored. Instances of insufficient machine guarding and failure of compressed air nozzles to have proper safety nozzles. A lack of emergency eye washes was noted in shop areas that require them. Ventilation and air quality appeared to be significant issues in the Capitol Police Firing Range area. dirksen senate office building In many offices, access to electrical cabinets was blocked by heavy objects, such as desks and bookcases. A number of employees complained of soot or dust being discharged from the ventilation system. None of the spaces inspected was protected by a sprinkler system. Although smoke detectors were installed in most of the buildings, they were not activated. There were insufficient electrical receptacles to handle the various power needs of individual offices. Numerous offices had large ripples and some tears in the carpeting which could present a tripping hazard. In shop areas there were excessive quantities of flammables observed that were improperly stored. Means of egress was a problem in several shop areas. The belts and pulleys, sprockets and chains, and electrical connections in elevator control rooms in the buildings were insufficiently guarded. hart senate office building Floor mounted electrical power boxes create potential trip hazards in offices. In a number of areas, the secondary exits were not marked as an exit. There were insufficient electrical receptacles to handle the various power needs of individual offices. The belts and pulleys, sprockets and chains, and electrical connections in elevator control rooms in the buildings were insufficiently guarded. In shop areas there were several instances observed where excessive quantities of flammables observed were improperly stored. Several instances of improper machine guarding and electric bulb guarding observed. Some areas, including the upholstery shop in the basement, did not have sufficient means of exit. russell senate office building In many offices, access to electrical cabinets was blocked by heavy objects, such as desks and bookcases. A number of employees complained of soot or dust being discharged from the ventilation system. Several areas were not protected by a sprinkler system. Some shop areas had insufficient means of emergency exit. The attic area needs additional exit signing. The belts and pulleys, sprockets and chains, and electrical connections in elevator control rooms in the buildings were insufficiently guarded. In shop areas there were several instances observed where excessive quantities of flammables were improperly stored. A plumbed-in emergency eye wash should be installed in battery changing stations. other senate buildings (senate computer center, senate day care, and senate page dorm) There were insufficient electrical receptacles to handle the various power needs of individual offices and work areas. In shop areas there were several instances observed where excessive quantities of flammables observed were improperly stored. Battery charging areas did not have permanently plumbed-in emergency eye washes. united states capitol building Throughout the Capitol, the location, identification, inspection and mounting of fire extinguishers was inconsistent. Numerous instances were identified where electrical extension cords were improperly used and there were insufficient electrical receptacles for the areas. The carpeting in several areas was badly bunched and could lead to a tripping hazard. Many complaints were received from employees in the building concerning air quality. In the shop areas there were a number of potentially dangerous equipment, materials, or areas (such as electrical distribution rooms, elevator control rooms with open electrical switches), that were not posted as to the danger and secured against unauthorized entry. In addition, the belts and pulleys and chains and sprockets in elevator control rooms were not properly guarded. Some areas were observed where oxygen and acetylene cylinders were improperly stored and unsecured. 501 first street building/e street garage Exit signing in the basement of the building could be improved. Emergency lighting in the Day Care area did not work when tested. The exhaust fan in the blueprint room was inoperable at the time of the inspection. Most of the fire extinguishers noted in the administrative sections of the building were sitting on the floor and being used as door stops. In the rear of the architectural division an apparently unused desk was blocking an emergency exit. capitol power plant Large portions of the power plant had no exit signs. Inadequate fall protection was noted in several areas, including the turbine bay opening (lack of a midrail) and the stair to the ash chute (hand rail needed in places). The paint shop was being used as a flammable liquid storage room but the room was inadequate for this purpose. united states capitol police Inspection of the Photo Development Lab revealed several issues concerning inadequate ventilation, lack of an adequate hazard communication program, and use of personal protective equipment. There was inadequate guarding of belts and pulleys, and sprockets and chains in the shop areas and elevator control rooms. Electrical distribution rooms were not uniformly posed and secured against unauthorized entry. Several instances were noted throughout the main building where exit ways were inappropriately marked. There were a limited number of instances where electrical or telephone cords could present a tripping hazard in the main building. A number of issues relating to sanitation and possible exposures to toxins exist at the Poplar Point K-9 training facility. supreme court building The belts and pulleys and drive shafts in elevator control rooms need some improvement in guarding. Some of the air nozzles were not equipped with safety nozzles to reduce dead end pressure. One battery charging area was observed that did not have a proper eye wash. united states botanic garden and d.c. village facilities Two battery charging stations observed that did not have proper eye washes installed. Some air nozzles in the woodworking shop were not equipped with safety nozzles. The amount of flammables in the storage in the Architect's shops at D.C. Village exceeded recommended limits and were improperly stored. grounds and off-site warehouses Several areas were observed where there was improper storage of flammable liquids. There was inadequate sanitation in a portion of the P Street warehouse. In some areas of the warehouse, there were open electrical conductors that could present a hazard to passing employees. Sprinkler protection was a significant deficiency regarding some of these warehouses. Emergency eye washes were not installed in areas associated with battery charging stations. general accounting office building Storage of flammable liquids was not compliant with safety and health standards. Machine guarding in a few shops was deficient. Improper storage of compressed gas cylinders observed. library of congress Inadequate fall protection was noted in attic areas and the roof of Library buildings. A significant problem with electrical safety was noted in several shop areas. This included allowing employee exposure to live electrical connections, improperly installed receptacles and other electrical equipment, improper temporary lighting and other connections, open electrical boxes, and unsecured electrical distribution rooms. A number of machines in the shop areas were inadequately or improperly guarded. Emergency eye washes were not installed in areas where needed. Some of the air nozzles in shop areas did not have the proper safety nozzle. Question. Have you or the Architect of the Capitol prepared any estimates of the cost and time required to bring these buildings into conformance? Response. The General Counsel has not prepared an estimate of the cost and time required to bring these buildings into conformance. We are not aware of any estimates prepared by the Architect of the Capitol regarding such costs. Mr. Walsh. Have you been to the Botanical Garden? Mr. Duffy. Yes, sir. All 20 million square feet on Capitol Hill alone, not including the individual home State and local offices across the country. Those findings, for both safety and health and for disability, the major conclusion was on the whole, legislative branch facilities were in pretty good shape. With respect to safety and health, they were by and large free of major hazards, and with disability access, most of the facilities were accessible. That is, if we were to transport most of these facilities to the private sector, we wouldn't find greater or lesser compliance, if you will, on the whole. There were areas that we believed needed improvement and attention, and we are currently working with the Architect and other employing offices to help them improve them. The summary of those recommendations are really in three areas, in both safety and health and disability. osha concerns Mr. Duffy. With safety and health, a major problem or difficulty, or an area of improvement, concerns the lack of coordination between various employing offices that may have jurisdiction or authority over the spaces where a hazard occurs. A good example of that would be in your office. There may be a hazard, carpeting, electrical hazards of one sort or another. Mr. Walsh. No. Mr. Duffy. Hypothetically, in that office, the tenant, if you will, has some control over that space and can bring in others, et cetera. The person who actually has the authority or the power to fix the problem is some other entity, the Architect of the Capitol. On the House side, things like carpeting divides even further into the Chief Administrative Officer versus the Architect of the Capitol. Trying to get all of those various offices to coordinate is something that I think needs improvement, and will improve greatly safety and health in the legislative branch. The second and a related point is a recommendation that all employing offices should develop a comprehensive safety and health plan that is appropriate to their office. Now, for smaller offices, an office of five people, a safety and health plan may be simply knowing where the exits are, though, to get out of the building in case of an emergency. In an organization like the Architect of the Capitol, which is a much larger and more complicated organization, it might consist of actually having a safety officer responsible for doing internal inspections to reduce the amount of items I might find during my inspection, or eliminating in some cases the necessity for an inspection. The third major recommendation we made--and as I understand, there is substantial progress being made on this-- is that the legislative branch should develop a comprehensive emergency and fire disaster plan for thinking about the legislative branch as a whole--hopefully, there won't be--in case of a bomb or other major emergency, and trying to coordinate the major organizations that will have to respond, including the attending physician, the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Police, et cetera, in a coordinated way, and having individual plans for each building for things like evacuation, who to call in the case of emergency, who is the contact point, et cetera. disability access Mr. Duffy. On the disability access side, as I said before, on the whole, access was quite good in terms of accessible features and being able to have persons get through public spaces notwithstanding their disability. But there were three areas again in which we believed improvements ought to be made. And as we have been monitoring the process with the Architect of the Capitol, we understand there has been substantial improvement in a very short space of time. The first recommendation that we made is to improve the signage or the identification of accessible features in the building, that is, putting up signs to let people know where are the accessible entrances and exits, where are the accessible rest rooms and telephones and things of that sort. Of course, there are some concerns about the architectural nature of some of these buildings and putting signs that are appropriate into these areas, and we have been working with the Architect of the Capitol in that regard. The second major area is really to improve awareness of staff regarding disability issues and how they can come into compliance. We found over the course of our inspections that there were a number of misconceptions about the nature of the statute, and the difficulty or lack thereof of bringing them into compliance. The major misconception is that compliance is extremely difficult, such as in every instance you have to have braille materials for everything we are producing. As we note in the reports, we spent a lot of time attempting to educate Members and others regarding their obligations. In many cases, meeting the obligations is not as difficult as you might think. Lastly, and again this is simply a repeat of the point I made with safety and health, a coordination needs to be made in terms of providing information generally throughout the legislative branch about accessible features. As I understand from House Oversight, they are making moves towards bringing in a central source to provide information as a disability coordinator, if you will. I think that will be very helpful in improving the situation. Mr. Walsh. Thank you. The House Sergeant at Arms indicated he is working on a plan, evacuation plan for the House, and has taken steps to improve access and egress. Are you involved in that at all? Mr. Duffy. We are in the review process. We are working with them. They present their plans; we give them the benefit of our thoughts, especially on the issue of disability access. I might add also that the House Sergeant at Arms has become intimately involved in the disaster plan development, along with the Capitol Police. I have a question for the record at this point. [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] Question. With regard to the reports you referred to--what distribution have these reports already had? Response. Copies of the Disability Access Inspection Report and the Safety and Health Inspection Report were distributed to each office of a Member of the House of Representatives, each office of a Senator, each committee of Congress, as well as each employing office inspected. Copies were also distributed to the Secretary of Labor, the Attorney General, and the analogous Executive Branch agencies with responsibility for compliance with occupational safety and health and disability access standards. Copies of the reports (exclusive of reports detailing findings on individual buildings and facilities) were made generally available to the public after submission to the Congress on June 28, 1996. The Office transmitted the Section 230 Study to the Congress by delivering copies to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President pro tempore of the Senate for referral to the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, and the Office transmitted copies to the GAO, GPO, and Library of Congress by delivering copies to the heads of the three instrumentalities. In addition, the Office sent courtesy copies of the Section 230 Study to the Democratic Leaders of the House and the Senate, to the Chairmen and ranking Members of the authorizing and oversight committees for both the Office and the three instrumentalities, and to employee organizations at the instrumentalities that requested copies. The Office transmitted the Section 102(b) Report to the Congress by delivering copies to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President pro tempore of the Senate to be printed in the Congressional Record and referred to the committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate with jurisdiction. In addition, the Office sent courtesy copies of the Section 102(b) Report to the Democratic Leaders of the House and the Senate and to the Chairmen and ranking Members of the authorizing and oversight committees of the Office. Both studies are also made available to the public on the Office's site on the world wide web. Question. Please supply the record an updated staffing chart. Response: The information follows: [Page 318--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Thank you. closing remarks Mr. Serrano? Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions. Your questions have been very good in bringing forth a lot of information. Concerning the last point, it can scare anyone to death. But I did want to just comment and congratulate you, Ms. Silberman, on your comment that these grievances have not suffered from any leaks or publicity. We know that they are very sensitive issues that come up every so often that could go from heavily founded to unfounded, and that kind of information can hurt all parties involved. So I congratulate you on doing something which is, in these kinds of processes, very difficult to do nowadays. Ms. Silberman. It is, indeed, difficult. We are going to ensure that our good record is going to continue. Thank you very much. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Cunningham? Mr. Cunningham. No. I just wish business had such an easy time dealing with OSHA and the rest of it as we do. [Questions from Ms. Kaptur and responses follow:] Question. In general, what do most of the disputes consist of which are brought before your office? Response. Inquiries have covered a broad range of areas, including all procedural and substantive aspects of the CAA and the Office's rules and regulations. In addition, many inquiries involve matters that are not within our jurisdiction. In such cases we make every effort to refer the individual making the inquiry to the appropriate source. With respect to formal requests for counseling, we have had requests under all of the sections of the Congressional Accountability Act, with the exception of the sections applying the Employee Polygraph Protection Act and the Veterans' Employment and Reemployment Act. Question. Is there a breakdown of who filed the cases, in terms of whether a case was filed by Members' personal staffs, committee staffs, or support staffs? Response. The vast majority of our cases have involved the instrumentalities of the legislative branch, as opposed to Congressional offices. Of the latter group, most cases have not involved legislative staff, but have arisen in support offices. Question. After a case has been settled, is there a follow- up procedure to ensure that this employee, who brought a complaint, is not subject to retaliation, harassment, or sudden downsizing? Response. The Congressional Accountability Act includes specific protection against relatiation. All employees who file complaints are fully apprised of this fact, and of the procedures for bringing a complaint of retaliation. Mr. Walsh. I think we are all set. Thank you very much for your testimony. It is nice to have you in today. Mr. Walsh. All right. We will come back at 1 o'clock. ---------- Tuesday, February 11, 1997. JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING WITNESSES HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA ERIC C. PETERSON, STAFF DIRECTOR, JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING Opening Remarks Senator Warner. I will be very brief. I thank the Chair and I thank the indulgence of the Members. We meet on Tuesdays from 1:00 to 2:00, and that is really the only meeting that a Senator has to attend is his Caucus meeting on that day, so if you will forgive me. I had to speak. Mr. Walsh. I always heard it was a lot easier on your side. Senator Warner. Hopefully, without objection, I will just submit my testimony---- Mr. Walsh. Without objection, why don't you go right ahead. Senator Warner [continuing]. And just come to the point where I think we have got to give some guidance, and that is this Title 44. While we have no intention of pulling work back from the private sector, there is a lot of the Government's printing which is not in compliance with Title 44. So we have got to, in fairness to the executive branch and to the question of the Supreme Court decisions and otherwise, figure out what we are going to do. And my committee proposes to address that issue. Now, markup language, you are familiar with the work to facilitate the electronic filing of legislative information and documents. That is another major initiative. Privatization, we are moving on that. It is exploratory: What products the Government Printing Office is still printing in their plant that could or should be procured from outside. [The information follows:] [Pages 322 - 323--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Well, we are delighted to have you with us, Mr. Chairman. I am sure you work very closely with Mr. Thomas, who represents the House, as your Vice Chairman. Senator Warner. Correct. [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] Title 44 Revision Question. Your budget material states that it is anticipated that legislation will be developed in the 105th Congress to reform Title 44, the basic statutes that govern printing throughout the Federal Government. Title 44 contains the statutory authority that covers the Government Printing Office. It also contains the basic laws which govern JCP workload. Is Title 44 in need of revision and updating? Is it likely that this will be done during this Congress? Response. There is general agreement among all interested parties that Title 44 needs revision. This law was written just before the beginning of this century. As we approach the millennium, Congress must take into account the new technology and adapt our laws accordingly. Last year, as Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, I held four hearings on this matter, and that process will continue with additional hearings planned for early this spring. It is my hope that a bill can be introduced and passed this year which will address many of the conflicting issues in the current law. Question. One of the most important programs within the framework of Title 44 is the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), which distributes government documents to over 1400 libraries throughout the country. A large number of those documents are still printed on paper. Recently, the Government Printing Office developed a plan to transition this program to electronic format. Will your Committee use this plan as you decide on amendments to Title 44? Response. The strategic plan and the effort that went into creating it serves as a beginning for this transition. The Federal Depository Library Program will become a more electronic-based service. The Joint Committee continues to urge, and GPO has complied by maximizing the use of electronic media. Federal agencies also are being urged to move in that direction. To the extent that GPO experiences difficulties in the transition that would require legislative attention, the Committee will address those issues. Executive Branch Printing Question. Your budget material mentions several instances where the Executive Branch is either ignoring cost- effectiveness or the letter of the law with respect to Federal printing. The Defense Printing Service, the National Technical Information Service, and others, are mentioned. Apparently, there is contradictory guidance given by OMB and the Justice Department regarding Executive Branch use of the GPO. What accounts for this situation? Response. There is definitely contradictory guidance from the Administration. There are a number of Executive Branch agencies that wish to take control of Executive Branch information and publication dissemination activities. The National Performance Review is promoting printing and publishing activities that are not in concert with current statutes. In April, 1996, former White House Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, directed the continued use of GPO by Executive Branch agencies for a one year period, but the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice has stated that violations of Title 44 will not result in prosecution; and OMB has contributed to this confusion by not providing consistent, firm guidance. This confusion is costly to the taxpayers in terms of unnecessary expense and documents lost to the public. Question. Will this continue to be a struggle until Title 44 is revised? Or can we make significant progress in the meantime? Response. This year at the request of the Joint Committee on Printing, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the House Oversight Committee are seeking language in all authorizing and appropriating bills requiring every Agency of the Federal Government to comply with Title 44, as Congress moves to update this law in light of modern technology. The Joint Committee also is initiating a study of all Executive Branch agencies to determine the true volume and costs of all printing and duplicating within the Federal Government. Every means available will be used to obtain compliance by Federal agencies with Title 44, especially with regard to access of government information by all citizens. However, until Title 44 is revised, I see a continued problem with non-compliance and the associated waste of money. Printing House Documents Question. Your budget material indicates several areas where JCP, GPO, and the Secretary of the Senate are working closely to reduce expensive printing setups or otherwise make efficiencies. We very much want the House to do the same. The House has directed the Clerk of the House to seek out printing reductions and efficiencies. One of the ways, we believe, is to exploit the use of the House ``DocuTech'' machine. Have there been any developments along those lines? Response. As Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, I have established a policy in the Senate for Committees and Member offices to utilize computer links to GPO from their WEB sites for access to electronic legislative materials. This avoids multiple databases and the associated costs for their establishment and maintenance. I understand this is not the policy in the House. GPO currently operates a print-on-demand system (DocuTech) in the Senate Document Room that provides print-on-demand copies of Senate documents when stock is exhausted. This avoids costly back-to-press requirements. This system and another one within GPO's central plant are networked to Congressional databases at GPO. The DocuTech resident within the House could be linked and operated in a similar manner. GPO's in-house DocuTech is routinely used to produce various House products when it is economical to do so. The Joint Committee is continuing to work with and encourage expanded electronic submission of Congressional data from both the House and the Senate. Question. For example, sometimes it is necessary to print very short (less than 10 pages) Committee ``prints'' and House documents, such as our 602(b) allocations. These appear to be ideal House DocuTech jobs. Can the new desktop printing technology be applied to the printing of these House documents? Response. The issue here is the information, not the medium. Any number of media are adaptable. Desktop publishing is just one of the possibilities. The Committee should be concerned about the total quantity of documents required and whether this would include dissemination to the public and the depository libraries. Question. Last year's bill directed the Clerk to work with the Senate, GPO and others to develop technical standards that will allow all Legislative Branch agencies to facilitate document printing. Is the Joint Committee participating in that effort? Response. Joint Committee staff are participating in the working group discussions dealing with the development of joint standards (Standard Generalized Markup Language) for the Legislative Branch. A consultant's report is due this spring for review by the working group. Subsequently, the working group--including the Joint Committee on Printing--will make its recommendations to the Senate Rules Committee and the House Oversight Committee for implementation. Mr. Walsh. Does anyone on the subcommittee have any questions? Mr. Cunningham. I know where we can save him $600,000. Mr. Walsh. Well, we can talk about that some more. Senator Warner. I would like to introduce the testimony of the distinguished Members, Sen. Ford and Rep. Hoyer. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Members of the committee. Mr. Walsh. I will accept that without objection. Senator Warner. Good. Appreciate it. [The information follows:] [Pages 326 - 333--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] ---------- Tuesday, February 11, 1997. U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WITNESSES JAMES F. HINCHMAN, ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES J. DEXTER PEACH, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL FOR PLANNING AND REPORTING JOAN M. DODARO, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL FOR OPERATIONS RICHARD L. BROWN, CONTROLLER Opening Remarks Mr. Walsh. We will now take up the budget of the General Accounting Office, GAO. The budget request is $368.8 million, and 3,500 FTEs. The funding includes $7.4 million that will be derived from offsetting collections. We have the Acting Comptroller General, James Hinchman. Welcome, Jim, and the several members of your staff who are with us also today. Since Mr. Bowsher's 15-year term expired, Mr. Hinchman has acted in that capacity. He is the principle Assistant Comptroller General, and the former General Counsel at GAO. As such, he has appeared before this subcommittee on numerous occasions, and we welcome him back today. Mr. Hinchman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate this chance to be here and talk about our appropriations request. Mr. Walsh. If you would like to introduce your staff? Mr. Hinchman. Let me do that. On my immediate right is Dick Brown, our Controller, and Joan Dodaro, our Assistant Comptroller General for Operations, the Chief Operating Officer of GAO. Next to her is Dexter Peach, Assistant Comptroller General for Planning and Reporting, who fundamentally is responsible for the work we do for Congress, for both planning and delivering those products. I have a prepared statement. I would, with your permission, like to summarize that briefly. And if that is acceptable, I will ask that it be put in the record. Mr. Walsh. We will do it that way. Mr. Hinchman. There are only two things I would like to share briefly with the subcommittee before we take your questions. First, I think we are accountable to you for the resources which you provide us, and I want to give you a very brief report about our implementation of last year's appropriations act and in general on the status of the agency. key features of request Mr. Hinchman. As you know, our appropriation for the last 2 years provides for a 25-percent reduction in our funding. We have implemented that reduction. We now have in place for this fiscal year a spending plan which accommodates both that 25- percent reduction and the absorption of 2 years of uncontrollable cost increases over the period of that reduction. As a result of that spending plan, we are now an agency of 3,500 people. That is down a third from where we were in 1992, at approximately 5,300. It is the lowest level at which we have been staffed since before World War II. However, the good news is that we remain a capable and effective organization that is continuing to perform its responsibilities for the Congress. We now have our performance report for 1996, and that report is positive. We have financial benefits of about $17 billion coming from our work. That is slightly higher than the year before. We issued about 1,300 audit and evaluation products. That is consistent with the last 2 years. We testified 181 times before congressional committees. That is somewhat lower than the 2 preceding years; nonetheless, it is historically a satisfactory performance in that category. So I would say, in brief, that my report on the status of the agency is positive. We have been successful in implementing the 25-percent reduction that our appropriations called for, successful in two respects: We have achieved the expenditure reductions, and we have been able to do so while maintaining our capacity to serve the Congress and to carry out our statutory responsibilities. So that is the first point. Second, I just want to say a brief word about our request for this next fiscal year. As you pointed out, we are seeking an appropriation of $369 million, which is essentially designed to preserve our current staffing size of 3,500. It is meant to stabilize the agency at its current level. To do that, we are seeking, as you pointed out, a $30 million increase. That increase would be for five purposes: First, we need some funds to pay for uncontrollable cost increases in personnel compensation and benefits, and second, we need some funds to pay for uncontrollable price level increases in the goods and services we buy. Those two items together account for over half of that $30 million increase. The remainder would go for three things: First, we need to invest in our information technology. We need to do some upgrading in those systems. Second, we have some personnel-related costs associatedwith promotions and employee recognition that we have foregone in the last few years as we were implementing the 25-percent reduction. And finally, we have some building repair and maintenance costs that we need to take care of with respect to our Washington headquarters building, which is now almost 50 years old. We have spent less money on the asbestos removal project in the last few years as part of the 25-percent reduction, and we need to put some additional funds into that. We know that resources are limited. We have tried very hard to be as responsible as we can about the amount of money that we spend, but if we are to stay at 3,500 and if we are to continue to be an effective organization that can meet its responsibility to Congress, then we need some funds to pay for these uncontrollable costs and price level increases. We also need to begin to address our information technology and facility needs. That, basically, is what our request is about. And those are the things I wanted to say. I think we are ready to answer any questions that you or Members of the subcommittee have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hinchman follows:] [Pages 338 - 359--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Well, thank you very much. I am sure there are a number of questions we would like to ask. Do any of the members of your staff have any statement they would like to make at this time? Mr. Hinchman. No, sir. I think we have said what is important for us to say. contracting out Mr. Walsh. All right. Let me just get a couple of questions here. On outsourcing, is GAO using outside contractors more frequently in program evaluation and financial audits to make up for the reduction in staff that you have experienced? Mr. Hinchman. We are attempting to do that as much as we can. Two years ago, we spent about $8 million, last year, about $9 million, and this year, we will spend about $17 million. That very large increase is due to a major study of medical savings accounts, which we are undertaking at the direction of Congress, principally the House Committee on Ways and Means. And outsourcing has been, in many respects, a good experience for us. Mr. Walsh. How do you determine which job you are going to outsource and which one you are going to keep in-house? Mr. Hinchman. A good candidate for outsourcing is one that involves specialized skills that we do not have or that involves large amounts of resources that we would have to remove from some other work, particularly if we need to do the work quickly. The Medical Savings Account Study, for example, involves an enormous database collection effort associated with interviewing thousands of people around the country who have established medical savings accounts. It is very difficult for us to reprogram resources to do that and then send them back into other work. I do need to say that contracting out is not a way to save money. Our experience is that the firms that do this work do not charge us less than it costs us to have our own people do the work. And, of course, we do need to provide supervision to the contractor. Outsourcing works least well in areas in which our expertise tends to be specialized, particularly areas of specialized government activity--the federal personnel system, for example--where GAO tends to be more expert and our learning curve is in fact shorter than some outside contractors. I think we need to have a balance. We need to look for opportunities where outsourcing works best for us. We need to be sensitive to when it is not the appropriate way to go. My expectation is that we will be able to do a substantial body of contracted audit work. As I said, though, I think we have to recognize outsourcing is not a way to save money. Therefore, we do have to have the financial resources to pay for it. Mr. Walsh. What is the downside of contracting out? Mr. Hinchman. I think the biggest downside is that there are some areas where it is difficult to find the kind of expertise it takes to do the job. We are more expert in some areas than private consulting firms. And then there is the issue of control. In some cases, members want our personal involvement and the assurance that, in fact, what they have is GAO's work, which is more difficult to ensure when you are working with a contractor. There is a little bit of separation between us and them, obviously. On the other hand, there are many situations in which it works very well. [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] Question. Is GAO using contractors more frequently in program evaluations and financial audits? Give us some statistics on your use of outside contractors and firms and how this compares with earlier practices. (Supply detailed comparison statistics for the record.) Response. GAO spent about $8.7 million in fiscal year 1996 and estimates spending $17 million in fiscal year 1997 to obtain products and services used to produce and distribute audit and evaluation products. Contractor-provided products and services include audit and evaluation services, databases, expert actuarial and statistical analyses, survey design and preparation services, and product review. Table 1 provides a breakout of contractor costs by fiscal year. Fiscal year 1997 estimates include $9.5 million to contract for a mandated congressional study of medical savings accounts. TABLE 1.--SUMMARY OF CONTRACT COSTS RELATED TO AUDIT AND EVALUATION PRODUCTS [Dollars in Thousands] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year Contract Category Fiscal year 1997 1996 cost estimate ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Audits and evaluations........................ $4,119 $12,610 Expert assistance and advice, e.g., actuarial services, real estate appraisals, sampling plans, questionnaires, and surveys........... 241 241 Support services, e.g., court reporting, transcribing, interpreting, proofreading..... 134 113 Data processing services, e.g., timesharing services, databases, data manipulation....... 969 835 Product handling, e.g., printing, distribution, etc............................ 3,216 3,216 ------------------------- Total Contracts......................... $8,679 $17,015 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Question. What particular strengths do you find these private sector experts bring to your work products? What drawbacks? Response. Using contractors to assist GAO in performing audit and evaluation work provides GAO additional flexibility to respond to congressional requests. Using contractors to conduct all or parts of an audit or evaluation expands the areas of expertise available throughout GAO and provides an ``industry'' perspective to the audit. GAO can undertake more assignments by supplementing existing staff resources with contract staff without affecting ongoing work--which eliminates the need for GAO to hire staff permanently. Contractors can also provide GAO a large number of resources on relatively short notice operating under GAO control. Using contractors works least well in areas in which our expertise tends to be specialized, particularly areas of specialized government activity, where GAO tends to be more expert and our learning curve is in fact shorter than some outside contractors. There are some areas where it is difficult to find the expertise it takes to do the job. Furthermore, information obtained by contract staff during the assignment leaves GAO bereft of the institutional knowledge gained during the assignment. In some cases, Members want our personal involvement and the assurance that what they have is GAO's work--which is more difficult to ensure when you are working with a contractor. A major drawback to using an outside contractor is cost, which is usually more expensive than the cost of GAO staff. Question. When GAO gets an outside contractor involved communication with the customer seems to be better. There seems to be more dialogue with the requester as the job unfolds as to what is needed. Do you find that to be the case as a rule? If so, why? Response. It is GAO's policy to keep our congressional customers fully informed throughout the course of each assignment. This policy is applied to each job regardless of whether it is fully staffed by GAO employees or whether we use contractors to assist with our work. Early discussions are held with our customers to help clearly define the objectives and scope the job, and repeated updates are generally held to ensure customers awareness of job progress and to obtain feedback and direction. It is critical for us to understand our customers' needs since the methodology and approach used for each job are tailored to its specific requirements and objectives. For some jobs there are multiple customers, and they require the use of more extensive and complicated communication techniques. Interviews, the use of focus groups, and frequent dialogue with requesters and other interested customers are often used in these situations. Other jobs have a smaller customer base and require the use of less complex communication techniques. However, regardless of the nature of the assignment, GAO's policy has always been to discuss each job with our congressional customers and to seek input and guidance as the job unfolds. GAO continually reinforces with its staff, through supervisory direction as well as formal and on-the-job training, the importance of early and continuing dialogue with our customers. We continually emphasize the importance of fully understanding customers' needs and perspectives and continually strive to improve our communication. use of videoconferencing Mr. Walsh. This question is--it is kind of interesting. I came from the telecommunications industry before I came here, 15 years. Mr. Hinchman. Yes, sir. Mr. Walsh. One of the things we were promoting then, and it has come a long way, is the idea of videoconferencing. It would seem that these thousands and thousands of interviews that you do, rather than go out and about to meet with these folks, can you adapt these technologies? It would seem to me there is an obvious cost savings, time savings, probably mostly time. Mr. Hinchman. That is a very good question, and I don't think we have explored all of these issues. We have used videoconferencing extensively for our own internal work. We have a videoconferencing system that links all of our field offices with Washington. Utilization of the videoconferencing system is up 7 percent so far this year over last year, and it has been very successful. We get teleconferencing service from the Consolidated Telecommunications System of the legislative branch, which has been a very good thing for us. It has reduced our costs. And the quality of the service we are getting, not only in teleconferencing but in data communications and long distance service, has really been terrific. Mr. Walsh. That is our lease-line network? Mr. Hinchman. Yes, sir. There are various components to it. Some of it is provided through contractors who make long distance service available, some of it at the high-speed data transmission, and some cases involve leased lines. It has proven terrific for us. We have a switch in our building that we share with GPO and is part of the system. We used to be on the GSA system. information gathering Mr. Walsh. The brunt of what you do, is it actually sitting down and talking to people? And other than number-crunching, everybody knows you do, you get those numbers from somewhere, is it by going out and sitting down and asking questions? Mr. Hinchman. We gather information in a number of ways. First of all, we do a lot of work with records. We look at records of government agencies that are associated with the work that we are doing. We do a lot of networking in Washington, but we also do it in the field: in the field offices of agencies and in the offices and facilities of contractors with the government, for example, in the case of major weapon systems. In addition to that, we do interview people. We interview government officials who are involved with programs. We interview people who interact with them and citizens who are participants in programs. So we bring all of that information together. Mr. Walsh. Do you take sworn testimony in these interviews or not? Mr. Hinchman. In general, we do not. Mr. Walsh. I don't know whether you can do that over video- teleconferencing. Mr. Hinchman. Nor do I. Although I don't know why not. Mr. Walsh. It would be okay from me, from where I come from. Mr. Hinchman. There are some state courts that allow videoconferencing to be used for testimony in court proceedings, in civil trials. I don't see any reason why that would be an impediment. Mr. Walsh. Let's see if I have got anything else. Are there any other questions, Mr. Serrano? Mr. Serrano. No questions. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Wamp? [A question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:] Question. According to your justification, you are using videoconferencing on a frequent basis. Explain your use of videoconferencing and its advantages and cost-effectiveness. (Please provide details of investment and annual operating costs for the record.) Response. GAO uses videoconferencing principally in carrying out mission work but also uses the technology for training and other administrative activities. In terms of mission work, videoconferencing has allowed dispersed workgroups in headquarters and field offices to conduct meetings without the need to travel. Generally, these meetings focus on such issues as key decision points in the audit assignments, coordination between audit sites, and development and review of briefing documents and draft reports. In addition, GAO has used videoconferencing to coordinate with other government agencies and the Congress. For example, GAO has hosted briefings in the field with congressional staff in Washington and in one instance has used the Internal Revenue Service's and GAO's facilities jointly to brief House staff in Anchorage, Alaska. GAO has also conducted exit interviews with Resolution Trust Corporation officials in Atlanta and has gathered testimony from other government agency witnesses-- especially the Department of Defense--throughout the country by using joint agency and GAO facilities or by bringing guests to GAO facilities. As other agencies begin to implement and use this technology more, GAO's use of videoconferencing as a tool in conducting audit work will likely increase. As mentioned earlier, GAO also uses videoconferencing for training and has found the approach both timely and effective. And GAO uses videoconferencing for management and administrative matters, such as staff meetings, when it is cost-effective to do so. GAO has conducted two assessments of its videoconferencing program. The assessments found that videoconferencing is an effective means of helping GAO accomplish its mission and identified several benefits of using videoconferencing, including significant savings in travel costs and time. Participants in the assessment reported that videoconferencing was typically as effective as traveling to meet ``in person.'' Participants also reported extensive nonquantifiable benefits, such as having key decision-makers present at the same time, enabling developmental staff and specialists to be present, making decisions in a more timely manner, improving coordination and teamwork between sites, avoiding potential rework, and providing more timely training. Our assessment report covering fiscal year 1993 noted that GAO avoided 650 days of travel time and approximately $400,000 of travel expenses during that period. GAO's capital investments in videoconferencing ended in October 1996, but a typical room system (presently, there are 17) required a capital investment of approximately $100,000 and has an operating cost of approximately $45,000 per fiscal year. The operating costs include maintenance, technical support, and recurring and usage charges for telecommunications services. In fiscal year 1996, GAO spent $950,000 for videoconferencing, which included the purchase of some equipment through lease-to- buy arrangements and operating costs. In fiscal year 1997, we estimate expenditures of $750,000 for operating costs. airline deregulation work Mr. Wamp. I would just like to make a comment. Last week--I think their names are Tim Hannigan and John Anderson, your aviation experts. Mr. Hinchman. Yes. Mr. Wamp. That is the second time that they have come into my district. But also last week we had this National Air Service Conference on the 20 or so airports that have been adversely affected as a result of airline deregulation. And GAO's input and their empirical data has helped this group of airports across the country battle through some extremely difficult times. And without your reports, studies, findings and coordination, frankly, this group that is now banded together to try to help each other would not even be in existence. And these two individuals, I want to commend them on the record, for the record here. Mr. Hinchman. Thank you. Mr. Wamp. The extraordinary talent. Mr. Hinchman. Thank you. Mr. Wamp. And the work that they do is superior. Everyone there last week, we had 15 States, and I guess about 25 airports and all the major carriers in the airline industry looking at this, because 80 percent of the country benefited from deregulation, about 20 percent of the country was hurt. But because of GAO's leadership, we are dealing with this problem. And frankly, there was no glue to hold this issue together, other than GAO, across the Nation. I think that is instructive as we look at and annually justify this funding. So thank you. Mr. Hinchman. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. I will pass it on to both of them. It is our job to do that kind of work, and I am glad that we did it well in this case. I appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. Tom? Mr. Latham. Nothing. Mr. Walsh. No? No one. One last question, and you might want to submit it for the record, what committees use GAO's services and what are you doing for those committees at the current time? Mr. Hinchman. I think it would be best if we submitted that for the record. We can go back and make sure that the answer is precise. I can tell you that the largest users of GAO in fiscal year 1996 were the House Budget, National Security, and Government Reform and Oversight Committees. [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] Question. What committees use GAO's services and what are you doing for those committees at the current time? Response. Attached is a list of House committees and subcommittees that requested work from GAO during the second session of the 104th Congress and the number of active or completed GAO assignments during that session. The number of GAO assignments include both assignments linked to House requests received during the session as well as assignments assigned to committee(s) with jurisdiction that were started in response to mandates contained in legislation passed by the Congress. [Pages 366 - 381--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Closing Remarks Mr. Walsh. That Kasich, he is spending all the government money. Okay. I think we are all set. Thank you very much. Mr. Hinchman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. I believe that is the end of the testimony today. The subcommittee hearing is adjourned. Thank you all for coming. ---------- Tuesday, February 11, 1997. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WITNESSES MICHAEL F. DiMARIO, PUBLIC PRINTER WAYNE P. KELLEY, SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS WILLIAM M. GUY, BUDGET OFFICER CHARLES C. COOK, SUPERINTENDENT, CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING MANAGEMENT DIVISION Mr. Walsh. All right, we are ready to do business. The Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations will come to order. I would begin with fiscal year budget 1998 from the Government Printing Office. We welcome Mr. Michael DiMario, the Public Printer. That is your title, the Public Printer? Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. Mr. Walsh. The 1998 budget request totals $114.5 million. That will be an increase of $3.8 million over the current year. There are two appropriation accounts involved, the Congressional Printing and Binding appropriation and the Superintendent of Documents program. In addition, under the Government corporation statutes, the appropriation bill authorizes the operation of the GPO revolving fund which finances all Federal printing, or at least printing which has not been exempted by the Joint Committee on Printing. The Government Printing Office therefore is the primary printing source for all Federal Government printing that is done through the operation of the GPO revolving fund. Before proceeding, Mr. DiMario, would you like to introduce your staff for the record. Introduction of Witnesses Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. To my extreme right is Mr. Wayne Kelley, who is the Superintendent of Documents. He is also the acting Deputy Public Printer; my deputy retired in January. Mr. Cunningham. We have had enough of that talk--``extreme right.'' Mr. Walsh. Would you prefer ``the extreme left''? Mr. DiMario. To my immediate right is William Guy, who is my Budget Officer and responsible for preparing most of our work today. Mr. Walsh. Welcome. Mr. DiMario. Also with me in the audience is Charles Cook. Charlie is the Superintendent of our Congressional Printing Management Division, and he is the person through whom the Congress submits its work to GPO. So he is very important to our process. And our Production Manager is also here, Don Ladd. Prepared Statement Mr. Chairman, for fiscal year 1998, we are requesting, as you indicated, a total of $114.5 million for those programs requiring annual appropriations directly to GPO. This includes $84 million for the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation and $30.5 million for the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents. The total amount we are requesting is an increase of $3.8 million, or 3.4 percent over the funding approved for fiscal year 1997. For congressional printing, we are seeking $2.4 million more than was approved this year due to work load increases anticipated for the second session of the 105th Congress, as well as cost increases due to employee pay and expenses for supplies, utilities, and maintenance. For the Superintendent of Documents, we are requesting $1.5 million more to fund unavoidable cost increases as well as the continued transformation of the Depository Library Program to an electronic basis. My prepared statement includes information on GPO's mission and programs to assist you in your review of our appropriations request. I specifically want to direct your attention to the fact that our use of electronic printing and information technologies over the past 2 decades has generated substantial savings for Congress and the taxpayers while improving public access to congressional and other Government information. Twenty years ago, our congressional printing budget was the equivalent of $209.5 million in today's dollars, and today our budget request is for $84 million, a reduction of nearly two- thirds. That reduction was achieved through our utilization of successive generations of electronic printing technologies to serve Congress. A major outcome of the productivity improvements generated by these technologies has been an ability to downsize our operations significantly. Since the mid-1970's, our work force has been reduced by more than 55 percent, from over 8,200 to the current 3,674 employees. We are continuing to manage downsizing to achieve savings without interrupting critical services to Congress and the public. Our use of electronic technologies means that Congress can achieve improved information services for its own use and for public access. The GPO infrastructure supporting Congress is already capable of receiving significantly more congressional data in electronic format in order to reduce production costs. It provides the necessary standardization of congressional information products as well as the systems for widespread public dissemination of this important information. We are prepared to assist the House in electronically disseminating committee materials, as a recent rules change requires, and we have a pilot program already operational for on-line access to committee hearings. Our GPO Access on-line service currently averages between 2.5 million and 3 million new document downloads per month, providing widespread public access to congressional and other Government documents, and we are successfully moving our Depository Library Program toward a predominantly electronic basis. Altogether, GPO's systems and services are dedicated to supporting Congress' move to increased utilization of electronic formats. We have the resources and experience to help make the Cyber Congress a reality. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks and I would be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. I would also ask that my prepared statement be made a part of the record. Mr. Walsh. Without objection. [The information follows:] [Pages 386 - 408--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. We have a few questions we would like to ask and submit some others for the record so we will not keep everybody too long at the table. We had the occasion to meet prior to this hearing, and I appreciate your help in explaining some of the operations of your department to me. I am new at this. You obviously have a great deal of experience. Congressmen Serrano and Cunningham--Congressman Serrano, you were on the subcommittee the last 2 years; right? Mr. Serrano. Let me clarify that. That keeps being brought up. When I was appointed to the committee, I came in time for the last meeting of the year--conference. That was it. Mr. Walsh. That is right. That is right. Okay. You have vast experience. Mr. Serrano. It was a great meeting though. Mr. Walsh. Hopefully, you will help us with that to guide the committee in the proper direction. In any event, I am sure we all have some questions about the operation. We have all heard about the Government Printing Office for years. Now we get a chance to really get an idea of what you do. The increase that you are requesting, it is a $3.8 million increase--$2.3 million of that is mandatory wage and benefits; is that correct? congressional printing cost increase requested Mr. DiMario. To a large degree. There is also some increase in other costs. Mr. Guy can cover those. Mr. Guy. The $2.3 million increase we are requesting is in the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation. That is comprised of costs---- Mr. Walsh. It is one of the two appropriations? Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. Mr. Guy. The other one is the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation. Mr. DiMario. But of the $2.3, $2.1 million is in fact for pay raises--pay increases. Mr. Walsh. In that appropriation. Mr. DiMario. In the CP&B appropriation. by-law distribution Mr. Walsh. Okay. The appropriation includes funds for publications distributed without charge to recipients. What are those? Mr. DiMario. Well, in the statute on Government printing, title 44, there are a number of specified distributions that we refer to as by-law distributions. Those would include distribution of the Congressional Record to recipients designated by United States Senators, as an example. It also used to include distribution to former Members of Congress. It includes certain distributions to the Library of Congress that they use to send publications under the International Exchange Program beyond those that we include within our appropriation to the International Exchange Program. Some of those distributions have been reduced through efforts of this subcommittee. Last year, as a result of action by the subcommittee, former Members of Congress no longer receive copies of the Congressional Record. That by-law distribution was discontinued, as were distributions to certain judges and recipients designated by House Members. That is essentially it. Mr. Walsh. We had a little flap up home about a document, a little document you produced, called the Constitution. There are certain individuals who like to get that, and then they hand it out to other people. Are you familiar with the book? Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. Mr. Walsh. Do we print those every year? Mr. DiMario. I don't believe we print them every year because the Constitution normally doesn't change, so we produce a quantity at a given point in time, and those are retained. Is that correct, Wayne? Mr. Kelley. Right. We put them in the sales program. Mr. Cunningham. You may get ready to gear up for a change. Mr. DiMario. Periodically they will be reprinted, but they are printed either as House or Senate documents when they are printed. I am not certain as to the Constitution. Mr. Guy. It has been printed as a House document. Mr. Walsh. Would these be without-charge-to-recipients sort of publications? Mr. DiMario. Not through our distribution, normally, except we would send copies to the Federal Depository Libraries. There are some 1,400, roughly, of those libraries. We may also have some free distribution. Wayne may speak to this. It might occur through the consumer center, which is run on contract by us for GSA. It is a GSA program. I don't know if they include those. I am not aware of any specific statutory inclusion for free distribution. Mr. Guy. As a House document, it would follow the normal distribution for House documents. Mr. Walsh. What does that mean? Mr. Guy. That means that they would become part of the serial set, for example, and they would be distributed to the Library of Congress, and to International Exchange Library partners. Mr. DiMario. But the individual who is coming into your office in your district who is receiving that, there is nothing in the law that compels that kind of distribution. You might receive a quantity that is authorized in the law and make it available to them. Mr. Walsh. That is our discretion under this law? Mr. DiMario. I believe that is the case, but without looking at the statute, I don't know specifically. But there are a number of publications that would be printed as House documents. This is Mr. Charles Cook, who is speaking now, and he is saying that approximately 1,500 copies of any House document are printed for distribution. Is that right? Mr. Cook. Congressional distribution, depository library, et cetera. Mr. Walsh. So we have discretion to distribute X number of these documents; 1,500. Mr. Serrano. Divided by 435. Mr. DiMario. I would have to rely on Mr. Cook's statement as to the printing requirements that come through. But all of our printing has to be authorized by law, and the provisions in the code are fairly specific on what is a House document, how it gets prepared, and what the distribution is. We follow those distributions. Mr. Guy. We would have the normal distribution, which would be about 1,500 copies, and then additional copies can be printed based on a resolution. This is the type of document that would typically have additional copies printed. Mr. Walsh. How many documents might there be, individual documents, that are on the House list or whatever? Mr. Cook. There are four right now. Over a period of a year, approximately 150 to 200 documents. Mr. Walsh. Different documents. Mr. Cook. Different types. Mr. Walsh. Each of these would be considered a House document? Mr. Cook. House document; yes, sir. Mr. Walsh. 1,500 of those copies would be made available to Members if they so desire? Mr. Cook. No, sir. They are made available to the House and Senate document rooms, the depository library program for distribution. Mr. Walsh. I see. Not the individual member offices? Mr. Cook. No, sir. The printing resolution, if one were to be passed by Congress, would take care of printing additional copies, and X amount of copies would be allocated to each Member for distribution. Mr. DiMario. Resolutions for printing for the Congress are directions by either Chamber to GPO through the Joint Committee on Printing. The joint committee is directly involved in that program. So the resolution, when it is passed, is directed to GPO through JCP. [Clerk's note.--The Public Printer has supplied the following information for the record:] In 1989, the Bicentennial Commission ordered printed 3.7 million pocket-sized copies of the Constitution. In 1992, 298,292 copies of the Constitution were printed as a House document. In 1994, 100,000 copies of the Constitution were printed as a Senate publication. In 1996, 11,229 copies of a bound annoted version of the Constitution, The Constitution of the United States of America--Analysis and Interpretation, were printed as a Senate document. Mr. Walsh. All the initials are down. There are a lot of them--alphabet soup. About how much does that cost, without charge to recipients? Mr. Guy. Well, there are a number of different categories. The largest category is copies of the Congressional Record which go to Senate constituents. That is about 2,190 recipients currently, and the cost is about $600,000. Mr. Walsh. That is the Senate record? Mr. Guy. This would be the entire Congressional Record. These would be copies that are authorized to go to public agencies and institutions that are designated by the individual Senators. By law, the authorization is 50. The limit currently is 37. The actual distribution is averaging about 22 per Senator. Mr. Walsh. The House doesn't do that, just the Senate does that? Mr. Guy. That is correct. The House, largely as a result of the efforts of this subcommittee, discontinued that distribution several years ago on behalf of the House Members. Mr. Walsh. The Senate hasn't seen the wisdom of that yet? Mr. Guy. The Senate is continuing to provide them. Mr. Walsh. Each Senator is sending out about 22 of these? Mr. Guy. On the average. Mr. Walsh. This is the total Congressional Record? Mr. Guy. Yes, sir. Mr. DiMario. And we follow those designated lists, whatever they send in. But the statute specifies that they are to be designated to public agencies and institutions. Mr. Walsh. Can we get a copy of the list that those are sent to? Mr. DiMario. Certainly. [The information follows:] The Senate recipients lists for the Daily Congressional Record were as follows, as of January of each year: 1993-- 2,819; 1994--2,547; 1995--2,492; 1996--2,513; and 1997--2,190. [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] [Pages 413 - 415--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions? Congressman Serrano? document management Mr. Serrano. I have a question, one question in four parts actually. I will read it all as one question. Mr. DiMario, the Clerk of the House has requested $1.5 million next year to launch a program to update the Clerk's computer system and for a proposed Document Management System. The Clerk has informed the committee that the project will last 4 years and cost $1.5 million. What is your reaction to this request? To what extent, if any, are you working with the Clerk on the Document Management System. Does GPO have the capability to do some or all of what the Clerk wants to do? If so, would that save money? To what extent does the Clerk's Office depend on the GPO for your technology, human resources and computer know-how on a day-to-day basis? If the committee granted the Clerk's request for this costly undertaking, in your opinion, how much would be duplicative and perhaps unnecessary because of what GPO already can do? And lastly, your agency has been involved in this technology for many years. Could you offer us any advice or suggestions on how we can get to where the Clerk wants us tobe in 4 or 5 years without perhaps providing new funds or scaling back the request? Mr. DiMario. I will try my best to answer the question. Essentially, we have in place at GPO existing technology because we began this electronic production of information, the digitizing of data, back in the mid-1960s. As a result of that, we have over the years maintained many, many products in a digitized data base. Those products were originally developed for printing, so the output was printed. But the transition through GPO to an electronic distribution system was mandated to us by the passage of a statute in 1993, which is the GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993. Under that Act, we were required to put our products up on line, specifically the Congressional Record and the Federal Register and other products, and to make those available to depository libraries, the public, as well as to the Congress. It was a natural progression. We were already doing this. We were creating our products electronically. We had them tagged. The data bases essentially existed. Today, we have some 70 congressional and other products. Seventy data bases. That is many, many more products than 70 publications, but 70 data bases. We are adding on a constant basis to that. We include many House materials. We believe we are fully capable and have in place a system that will allow us to do everything that the House is planning to do in their proposal for this Document Management System. They have not specifically come to us about this Document Management System. However, at a meeting within the last year, that our people attended, they did hand out a detailed plan of the Clerk of the House, to move into this system. We think that is extremely duplicative of what we already do or have in place. Moreover, our system is a standardized structure for the House and Senate. It allows us to tag documents and produce them in a particular way, capture that data, and use it in multiple sequences for various products so we don't have to re-key and redo the documents over and over again. We can just pick up parts and move them, which has great economy. We think the House would have to put in place a system that would duplicate what we are already doing, would have to train people, and it would be at an additional cost to the House. We would like to work more closely with the Clerk's Office, let them be aware of what we are doing. We want to be supportive, and we think that our skill is not being looked at. There is this view that they need to create something and get away from GPO. There are statements of obsolescence about GPO, or that we are using proprietary systems that are difficult to understand. We don't believe that to be the case. There are people already in place on the Hill, both in the Senate and the House, who are using our systems, not just GPO people who are on the Hill. They are trained, and we believe they are very happy with it. This includes the Legislative Counsel's Office in both chambers. Everything you are doing by way of legislation, is going through that system. So we think it is simply a case of having us participate in a cooperative way and supporting the House in its initiative. Mr. Serrano. Thank you all for your very direct answer. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could take credit for this question. Mr. Walsh. It was a great question. Mr. Serrano. For the record, it was prepared by Mr. Fazio. We want the record to so indicate. Mr. Walsh. All right. The record will show. Would you like to have that added into the record and get a response to each point of the question? Mr. Serrano. Absolutely. Mr. Walsh. We will do that. Mr. Serrano. On behalf of Mr. Fazio. [Question from Mr. Fazio and responses follow:] The House Clerk has requested $1.5 million next year to launch an ambitious project to upgrade the Clerk's computer system for a proposed Document Management System. The Clerk has informed the committee that the project will last four years and cost more than the $1.5 million requested for FY 98. Question. What is your reaction to this request? To what extent, if any, are you working with the Clerk on the Document Management System? More importantly, does GPO have the capability to do some or all of what the Clerk wants to do? If so, would that save money? Response. I believe that the stated goal of the program--to reduce dependency on GPO--focuses on means rather than ends. GPO has not been involved in the proposed Document Management System. GPO has the skilled employees and infrastructure to support the Cyber Congress for official publications. We are expanding electronic access and producing additional CD-ROM products. Question. To what extent does the Clerk's office request depend on the GPO for your technology, human resources and computer know-how on a day-to-day basis? Response. I am proud to say that the Clerk's Office, as do all committees of Congress, relies heavily on GPO for support on a daily basis. GPO has a long tradition of working closely with the Congress to achieve real savings in document creation and distribution. Question. If the committee granted the Clerk's request for this costly undertaking, in your opinion, how much would be duplicative and perhaps unnecessary because of what GPO already can do? Response. I believe that aspects of the project are duplicative of GPO's mission and evolving capabilities to support the Congress, and would be costly and impractical. GPO provides a system for the creation, storage, and retrieval of official documents. From that official database we are increasingly able to share access, to print, and to produce CD- ROMs. GPO provides distribution channels for sales to the public and depository libraries. Question. Your agency has been involved in this technology for many years. Would you or could you offer us any advice or suggestions on how we can get to where the Clerk wants to be in four or five years without us providing the new funds or perhaps scaling back this request? Response. Solutions need to be pursued in the following areas: Increase standardization for publication databases to allow for highly integrated and open systems. Consistency in style and format for user interfaces, including online and CD-ROM. Reduce duplication in services by linking to GPO databases and online services. Increase source data automation by capturing more original keystrokes in usable electronic formats. Enhance finding aids and one-stop shopping capability to facilitate access to government information. Distribute-then-print where more economical for smaller quantities and reprints to reduce life-cycle costs through a coordinated distribution network, including public distribution. Mr. Walsh. Let me go to the other Members first. Mr. Cunningham? Mr. Cunningham. I have no questions. Mr. Wamp. No questions. Mr. Cunningham. Maybe just one--your system converts to digital, as opposed to analog? Mr. DiMario. We are all digital. As my prepared statement indicates, we put our electronic products up on the World Wide Web. We have our documents up in several formats. We are moving aggressively into an SGML-based structure so that we can do multimedia kinds of products, and that has all been done pursuant to statute, which is important. We have a statute which requires us to do this, and we have done it. We did it within the one year time frame that was required by statute. The Thomas System, which the Library of Congress operates, their documents originate in GPO, many of them, and we send them over there electronically. Mr. Cunningham. So you already convert them electronically? Mr. DiMario. Absolutely. We produce them electronically in the first instance and we put them up electronically at the same time we are printing and then delivering the paper products. Not later than 11:00 a.m. in the morning on any given day, you can access the Congressional Record. Actually, you may get it before it is actually physically up here. Mr. Serrano. I have one further question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. Go ahead. electronic access Mr. Serrano. I didn't catch what you said, but I know you were speaking about downloads, a couple of million downloads a month? Mr. DiMario. Right. What that is about in the statement is the number of people who are actually accessing our GPO access system, and retrieving documents, so that this is not just a search and hit. Some people count search and hit. We are not doing that. These are actual retrievals of documents by parties on the system, whether in the depository system or outside it, who are coming into GPO Access and retrieving public documents from us, and a great many of those documents are congressional documents. Mr. Serrano. This is not the general public? Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. I am talking about the general public. Mr. Serrano. A couple million a month you say? Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. The general public includes the Federal Depository System. There are some 1,400 libraries, every Congressman is allowed to designate libraries pursuant to law. So theoretically in every district there can be congressionally designated depositories. Each Senator may do the same. On top of those congressionally designated libraries, there are some statutory libraries, including law school libraries, as an example. The State courts are included, the highest court in the State. We also have distribution to Federal agencies who make use of the documents, so they become depositories. The Supreme Court and other courts receive the documents. So they receive them through this system that we have in place, this depository system. They are not the government per se, although some might be. They are mostly private institutions that agree to house the documents, at their expense, and to make them available to the public, free of charge under the law. We supply the documents. Now, through the efforts of this subcommittee, we have moved that program from what was predominantly a paper-driven program to an electronic program. The transition that is mentioned in my statement speaks to a 5 to 7-year time frame, although there was a more ambitious direction from this subcommittee initially to go in a 2-year time frame, to move all of our documents to an electronic basis. I can proudly say that we are approaching the 50 percent point in terms of the documents being in electronic format. That is the goal for fiscal year 1998 that was established in our study, to have 50 percent of the documents electronically in that time frame. We have gotten them up there long before we are going to hit the time frame. Now, we think we have done what the subcommittee has asked us to do. We think we are saving a lot of money, and we think we have proven that we are capable of dealing technologically with this. We would like to use this expertise to continue to support the House and the Senate. Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, that question was mine. Mr. Walsh. Another great question. document management Mr. Walsh. Do we have sort of a turf battle here? Mr. DiMario. I would like not to think that. I would like to think that the House wants to do certain things not because of turf, or the Clerk's Office, but because they have a perceived need. And I would like to also think---- Mr. Walsh. The House directed the Clerk in a report from, I believe, the Committee on House Oversight, to prepare an Information System program plan for the U.S. House of Representatives. It directed the Clerk to spearhead the selection and deployment of a Document Management Program. That is what we are talking about. Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir, that was a May 1996 report; is that correct? Mr. Walsh. Well, it says date, November 15, 1995. Mr. DiMario. Okay. I saw an iteration of that. It was dated May of 1996. I believe that is correct. But the question is whether or not the Clerk's Office initiated the effort before it came to House Oversight. It may well be directed. The only thing---- Mr. Walsh. So House Oversight is taking direction from the Clerk, is that what you are saying? Mr. DiMario. I can't speak to that. I would hope it is the other way, but I am not certain. Mr. Walsh. I would suspect it is. Mr. DiMario. I would only say that we have not been a party to the discussions at GPO. We have only seen these documentations, incidentally. As I indicated, one of our people happened to be at a meeting in which the documentation in draft form was handed out some time ago. Mr. Walsh. GPO was listed in the distribution of these documents in this report, as I understand it. Mr. DiMario. It may be in that report. The one I am speaking to we were mentioned in it, but we were not-- Mr. Walsh. Maybe we ought to get you a copy of thisreport. Page 19 and 20, the report notes further that complete electronic versions of the bills will be forwarded to GPO for printing and distribution. On page 21, when dealing with the committee reports, the document notes specifically the files will be distributed to libraries, the Thomas system, the GPO Access system, and available for sale through GPO. Mr. DiMario. That may well be the case in there, but that is an after-the-fact distribution, after it is produced. Why would you go and produce it somewhere else when you have a system in place that produces it now? Mr. Walsh. Again, I am new at this, but doesn't the Clerk basically own that information until it is certified? Don't they have to certify the Congressional Record? If words have to be expunged or words are taken down or whatever, they have to make sure that is all clarified? Mr. DiMario. I would agree. The Clerk owns it; the House owns it. It is not our information. We do not deal with changing information. But the process that is used to produce documents has been one that has been through GPO. Electronic photocomposition was done by GPO since the mid- 1960s in an electronic format. Now we are moving to an electronic distribution. But in order to create an electronic product, you have to do precisely the same thing you do to create the printed product. We are already doing that. Why would you then move to put a system on the Hill to create an electronic product in the Clerk's Office, when we already have the system in place? Not only that, we have these historical data bases that are used and drawn upon by various elements of the House that are already tagged and available. Mr. Walsh. This is just a small part of your business, isn't it? Mr. DiMario. It would be a very significant part. Dollar- wise, you may be talking about a small part, but it is still a very, very significant part. It is the essence of what we do. Mr. Walsh. The Clerk really is not equipped to make this generally accessible to the public, right? She would produce the document and electronically transmit it to you, and then you would have responsibility for printing it, selling it, distribution of it and so forth in printed form. And also you would have it on your access. Mr. DiMario. I would only submit that we are not fully aware of what their plans are at this point. You are saying I have received that. I don't recall that specific document. You are going to send it to me. Mr. Walsh. We can do that. Mr. DiMario. But up to this point, our people have not participated fully in the process and we are reacting to the information that we see, and we are reacting in our statement to the statement that was included in part 1 of the appropriations hearing, on I think it was page 163. I have it here. Mr. Walsh. Well, I agree. I think you need to see a copy of that report. Since you both have a piece of this business, you need to be talking. Mr. DiMario. Yes. And I think that is important that we talk on the issue. It is page 163, and we are reacting to that. One of the things, it says, ``The main objective of the Document Management System is to become less dependent on the Government Printing Office for preparation, printing, and distribution of official House documents.'' Then it goes on and says, ``Also to reduce GPO costs by rendering GPO detailees and equipment less important to offices by establishing a standard format and easy to use word processing software.'' If you look at the more detailed statements, what it appears is that this is an effort to eliminate GPO in its production process. Mr. Walsh. I don't know if that was her view. Mr. DiMario. Perhaps we need to meet on the issue. Mr. Walsh. It probably would be a real good idea. I don't think you need a subcommittee of the Congress to get you two together, do you? Mr. DiMario. I hope not, no, sir. Not on my part. Mr. Walsh. Why don't you give her a call? Mr. DiMario. I will do that. Mr. Walsh. We will send you the document. I think it would be great if you could work this out together. [Clerk's note.--The Committee has provided to the Government Printing Office a copy of the report, ``An Information Systems Program Plan for the U.S. House of Representatives, dated November 15, 1995.] Mr. DiMario. Yes, sir. Mr. Walsh. Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. ---------- Wednesday, February 12, 1997. JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE WITNESSES HON. JAMES SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY CHRISTOPHER FRENZE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE Mr. Walsh. The committee hearing will come to order. We are pleased this morning to welcome the incoming Chairman of the important Joint Economic Committee, our colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Jim Saxton. Jim, welcome. Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. We do not have with us this morning Senator Connie Mack, but I am sure he will work very closely with you. The new Staff Director is also here, Christopher Frenze. Chris, welcome. As is customary, we will place your biography in the record at this point. [The information follows:] Biography of Christopher Frenze Christopher Frenze was appointed Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) by Chairman Saxton in January of 1997. Before this appointment, he had served the JEC for 16 years as economist, senior economist, and in 1995-1996, as chief economist to the vice chairman. Prior to his joining the staff of the JEC in 1981, Mr. Frenze was Director of Research for the National Tax Equality Association from 1979 to 1981. Mr. Frenze received his undergraduate degree in economics from American University in 1977, and did graduate work in economics at Virginia Polytechnical Institute (VPI). Mr. Walsh. The budget justification material has been printed in Part 1, which has been distributed to the Members. Mr. Chairman, your letter reflects a status quo of $2.75 million, the same amount as provided last year, which was more than a 25 percent cut from the fiscal year 1995. Please proceed with your statement, Mr. Chairman. opening statement of chairman jim saxton Mr. Saxton. I have a written statement, which I will submit for the record, and just very briefly say thank you for having us here this morning. Along with Chris Frenze is Colleen Healy who is our Financial Director in case there are any questions of a specific nature concerning what we do with our money. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe our function is a very vital one and one that is certainly worthy of the amount of appropriations that you just mentioned, which is as you correctly point out, almost a 25 percent reduction from fiscal year 1995, so we would like to think that we are doing our part with our oar in the water in trying to operate as efficiently as possible, and at the same time, save the taxpayers' dollars. Essentially, Mr. Chairman, our function in the next two years as I see it--and incidentally, I am the first Republican House Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee in 40 years---- Mr. Walsh. I like the sound of that. Mr. Saxton. I look forward to carrying out the duties of the Joint Economic Committee. As I see our job over the next two years, we will look at policy areas that the Congress is involved in that have to do with taxing, spending, regulatory authority that we give the agencies and how they carry it out, and monetary policy, and try to understand and explain and report to others who might be interested in the effects of those policies on the economy. As we all know, we can oftentimes as an institution, and as a government, do things that are right and help to promote economic growth, and at other times, we do things that, unfortunately, do not promote economic growth. In fact, retard economic growth. Our function in carrying out that mission involves a number of people who have broad experience in government/economics. We, in addition to the people that work for us, from time to time contract out for special projects, which lead to reports and a variety of different types of information which are useful to the Congress as an institution, and understanding among the public generally as to the effect of government policy on our free enterprise system. So, we look forward to an aggressive two years. I might say, that we have a goal of working with both parties together to try to reach consensus on as many issues as we can relative to government operations and the economy. So, if you have questions, I will be more than happy to try to answer them at this point. [The information follows:] [Pages 425 - 426--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Thank you for your statement. Just as I have said a number of times before, I am relatively new at this. This is my first time chairing this subcommittee, too, so I am learning every day, and the Joint Committee provides analysis for us. Who does the analysis? If you could break down the makeup of the people who---- committee structure and role Mr. Saxton. We have a staff which is essentially made up of economists, Chris Frenze is a long-time economist. We have hired a number of other people, for example, Dr. Bob Keleher is our Chief Macroeconomist. He previously served with the Federal Reserve for 14 years. He will bring us insight, obviously, into issues involving interest rates and monetary policy. Dr. Hayden Bryan is a Senior Economist who previously served as a Senior Economist for the Senate Labor Committee and, obviously, his experience will add a great deal. Dr. Reed Garfield is a Senior Economist who works on a variety of macro- and micro-economic issues, and he over the past two years has been responsible for producing a number of reports which we have been able to use quite effectively. Dan Miller, is an Economist who works on a variety of economic issues as well, and then we have a number of other support staff that work along with these folks who are really the backbone of our workforce. Mr. Walsh. Do you have any--is any of the work that you do, reports that you provide, is that done in collaboration with GAO or in conjunction with the Congressional Budget Office? Mr. Saxton. We work closely with the Joint Tax Committee. We work closely with GAO. We work closely with CBO. And, of course, we call on BLS from time to time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As an example of the interaction that we have with other agencies, as you know, the Finance Committee recently released a report called the Boskin Report which was critical of the accuracy of the Consumer Price Index. They recommended that we institute changes in the Consumer Price Index that would effectively lower the Consumer Price Index, in their view, by about 1.1 percent. They think the CPI is overstated by that amount. A number of economists have asked questions, such as, how they arrived at that figure, and about the effect on taxes and on benefits if we lower the CPI. We are currently in the process of working with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to try to answer those questions and sometime this summer report to the membership of the Congress and the American public on the BLS view and the Joint Economic Committee view of the Boskin Report. Mr. Walsh. Has the Joint Economic Committee taken a position on the Boskin Report or would you just produce your findings and not take a standing one way or another? Mr. Saxton. We may take a position. At this point, we have just raised questions. We have looked at the effects of the Boskin Report in a cursory kind of a way, over the next 12-year period. We believe that it means about a trillion dollars in additional fiscal restraint to the budget over that 12-year period; 40 percent of which comes from tax increases because of changes in threshold levels in our tax policy, and 60 percent comes from reductions in benefit levels for the same reasons. We may take the position, particularly relative to the tax issue, because that could very well have a marked effect on economic growth. Mr. Walsh. Just one last question, as you know, the first item out of the box this year is the balanced budget--the President presented a balanced budget, balanced in the year 2002. Congress is working with the administration. Does the Joint Economic Committee provide analysis of the two budgets, the one presented by the Congress and by the President? Or do you look at the assumptions, for example, regarding recession and when recessions may occur in this 5- year cycle? Mr. Saxton. The answer is yes, we look at budgets. We have in the past looked at the effect of a potential balanced budget and the balanced budget amendment. There are differing opinions on the committee which, frankly, run along party lines, although things don't always differ along party lines. Just the day before yesterday, we had a hearing which lasted several hours on the Economic Report of the President, and we raised some questions about it. And so, yes, we are in the process currently of issuing a report on the President's Economic Report. And will raise very significant questions about it. Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Mr. Serrano? Mr. Serrano. First, let me welcome you and congratulate you on this new role you are undertaking. Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr. Serrano. You are a class guy, a friend, a gentleman and a scholar, and a friend of Jim Walsh. Mr. Walsh. You were doing fine up until then. Mr. Serrano. But in spite of that, it is good to have you. You started to answer the only question I really have, which is what role do you think you and the committee will be asked to play as some people begin to play out their desire to change the Tax Code? And what role do you think your committee has to play in singling out the dangers of any changes in the Tax Code? You know, the big argument in this country right now continues to be on whom do you reduce taxes and how do you spur movement in the economy. There are those of us who say you have got to help people that have two kids in college and others say help people at the top and they will trickle it down. First, do you feel that you will be called on more than usual in the next 2 years? And second, what do you think your role will be? Mr. Saxton. I hope we will be called on because I think in the next two years, particularly relative to tax and spending policy, as well as monetary policy, there are going to be legislative efforts in each of those directions, and I think it is very important that a group like ours be able to be in a position to suggest the long-term effects of changes in taxing or spending or monetary policy. Let me just talk about all three for a minute. Let me start with changes in the Tax Code. We have looked at the history of Tax Code changes over the long haul on a bipartisan basis. John Kennedy, in 1963, in his State of the Union Address suggested that there were changes that needed to be made with the Tax Code in order to promote economic growth. Unfortunately, subsequent to his passing, those changes were made and sure enough economic growth took place. And in the 1970s we watched as there were no tax increases legislated but taxes went up because of bracket creep and increases in the tax rates for Social Security, were also enacted. And by the end of the decade, things had gotten into a stagnant situation and we are able to draw a direct correlation between the level of taxation that the American people had become subject to, and a bad economy. During the decade of the 1980s, once again a Kennedy policy, this time instituted by Reagan and Congress, provided economic growth once again, which is sustained through today. We have studies that document all of that. On the spending side, and there is some difference of opinion, I must say, on this, as to what the appropriate size of government is. We have a study, which I would love to share with you, which shows that once Federal Government spending exceeds somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 to 19 percent, that spending becomes a detractor, a drag on economic growth. And so there are all kinds of ramifications of things that we look at from time to time, relative to spending. But that generally is the thrust. On monetary policy, the Fed in modern days has adopted two objectives: One is to control inflation or deal with the issue of price stability; and the other is to institute monetary policy which promotes economic growth. Most countries in addressing their monetary policy today have adopted one target. That target is price stability. And so we have a Fed that has two targets. One of the questions that we hope to answer over the next two years is whether the Fed ought to have price stability as its target or whether it ought to have two targets, namely, the promotion of economic growth and price stability. That is a very basic question, and I think it needs attention. Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. I have questions for the record I'd like to insert here. [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] Question. There is $55,000 budgeted for reimbursable details and contract support. Do you expect to contract out for some of the economics expertise you need? How will outside assistance be used by the Joint Committee? Response. Yes, we do expect to let contracts. The Committee will employ contractors whose specialized skills and/or experience facilitate efficient, timely and cost-effective analysis of public policy issues. Furthermore, we access primary and secondary data sources. Illustrative sources include the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congressional Research Service, Government Accounting Office, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Reserve System, and various private sector trade- and other groups. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Wamp? Mr. Latham? No questions? All right, Jim, thank you very much for coming this morning. We will let you go. We know you are busy. Wednesday, February 12, 1997. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WITNESSES JAMES H. BILLINGTON, THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS GEN. DONALD L. SCOTT, RETIRED, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS WINSTON TABB, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES RUBENS MEDINA, LAW LIBRARIAN JO ANN C. JENKINS, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF THE LIBRARIAN LLOYD A. PAULS, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR HUMAN RESOURCES LINDA J. WASHINGTON, DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED SUPPORT SERVICES HERBERT S. BECKER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES MARYBETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE FRANK KURT CYLKE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE BLIND AND PHYSICIALLY HANDICAPPED JOHN D. WEBSTER, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL SERVICES CHESTER L. TURNER, III, ACTING BUDGET OFFICER Opening Remarks Mr. Walsh. Next up to bat is the Library of Congress. We will now take up the Library of Congress budget. We want to welcome Dr. James H. Billington, the Librarian of Congress. We also welcome retired General Donald L. Scott, who was named Deputy Librarian of Congress on September 30, 1996. Congratulations. General Scott. Thank you, sir. budget request Mr. Walsh. The 1998 budget of the Library of Congress assumes total funds available will be $523.8 million from a variety of sources, including appropriated funds, receipts, gifts, trusts, and revolving funds and reimbursable programs. The funding request before the committee today is $387.6 million, an increase of $25.7 million or 7.1 percent over current level. The Library is requesting an additional 96 positions above the current FTE level of 4,299. An additional 335 FTEs are supported from other sources. Dr. Billington, again, welcome. If you would like to introduce any members of your staff, go ahead and do that. Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In addition to General Scott, we have Winston Tabb, the Associate Librarian for Library Services; Rubens Medina, the Law Librarian; Jo Ann C. Jenkins, our Chief of Staff; Lloyd A. Pauls, Associate Librarian for Human Resources; Linda J. Washington, Director of Integrated Support Services; Herbert S. Becker, Director of Information Technology Services; Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights; Daniel P. Mulhollan, the Director of the Congressional Research Service; Frank Kurt Cylke, Director of the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped; and John D. Webster, Director of Financial Services. I might mention, Mr. Chuck Turner, Acting Budget Officer also planned to be here, but due to health problems, he is in the hospital, he was unable to be here and we hope he will be back soon. Mr. Walsh. We are sorry. He has been helpful to this committee and we wish him well. librarian's statement Dr. Billington. I will keep my remarks brief because I will submit my full statement for the record. And also, I want the Deputy Librarian of Congress, Donald Scott, to have time to make some introductory remarks. He is the Chief Operating Officer of the Library and is appearing for the first time before this committee. He has had a very distinguished military career and served more recently as Chief of Staff for the Mayor of Atlanta and as the National Director of the National Civilian Community Corps. He brings very substantial management experience to us and we are very fortunate to have him. Mr. Chairman, this Library is like no other agency of the legislative branch; in a way, like no other institution in the world. With the support of the Congress, the Library of Congress has become the world's largest, best-organized and most-accessible repository of knowledge. A resource that in both terms of collections and its staff, will be of increasing and incalculable value to all Americans in the Information Age. This Library serves both the national legislature and the libraries, scholars, and citizens of the entire Nation. The Speaker stated on the first day of the 105th Congress that ``We, have to move the legislative branch into the information age.'' electronic services That takes plans and investment, but it pays off. Thanks to strong support from Congress, the Library was able to put THOMAS on-line for the Nation at the start of the 104th Congress. Working with the House and Senate, a retrieval component of the legislative information system is now available at the start of the 105th Congress. Since its inception, THOMAS has recorded 30 million electronic transactions, a clear sign of the usefulness and appeal of searchable congressional information to the American public. Through the National Digital Library effort, again with congressional support, and with added major support from private philanthropy, the Library has become a world leader in providing high-quality content for the Internet. We are recording some 20 million electronic transactions a month on all our databases, triple the number in 1992. Time Magazine named our Web site as one of the 10 best of 1996, and this also reflects great credit on the Congress which backed and encouraged this initiative. goal for 21st century The Library's goal for the 21st Century is to lead the Nation in ensuring access to knowledge and information to educate and enrich society through the acquisition, organization, and dissemination of knowledge and solid information. The Library today faces the challenge of carrying out a full transition to new electronic services for Congress and the public as well as to the more efficient operations made possible by new technology, while at the same time continuing its basic, well-established services to the Congress and the Nation. The Library, in a sense, must both preserve the past and embrace the future in order to maintain its services in the present. This requires a modest capital investment in technology now. It also requires basic continuing support from Congress, including paying for mandatory pay increases and price level increases, in order to sustain our traditional work of cataloging, collections security, and access to the collections. Otherwise we face erosion and a possible breakdown in traditional services and the likely prospect that the transition which we will eventually have to make simply to keep up to date will be even more costly in the future. library bicentennial Mr. Chairman, in only 3 years the Library of Congress will mark its bicentennial. We are fully reopening the magnificent Jefferson Building, which the Congress enabled us to restore. And the year 2000 will be an occasion to show the Nation that its elected representatives have had the wisdom to create and sustain the world's greatest repository of human knowledge and creativity as a major resource, not just for today's citizens, but for future generations for uses we can't anticipate today. By funding the Library's 1998 fiscal budget request, the Congress will enable the Library to head into the 21st Century with the capacity to make its operations more efficient, to provide much wider access to its collections, and to offer even better services to the Congress and the American people. So, Mr. Chairman, I respectly request and strongly urge the subcommittee support the Library's budget request. [The prepared statement of Dr. Billington follows:] [Pages 434 - 474--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] deputy librarian's statement Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much for your testimony. Before we begin questions of Dr. Billington, I would like to give General Scott the opportunity to make a statement if he would like. Welcome to your first appearance before the subcommittee. [A biography of Donald L. Scott follows:] Donald Lavern Scott, Deputy Librarian of Congress Donald Lavern Scott, retired Army brigadier general and vice president and national director of the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps, has been appointed Deputy Librarian of Congress. He will assume his duties at the Library on or about September 30, 1996. Librarian of Congress James H. Billington said: ``I am delighted to appoint Donald Scott as my deputy and the Library's chief operating officer. His varied experience, his distinguished career in public service, and demonstrated competence as a manager and leader have impressed all who have met him.'' Said General Scott: ``I am pleased and honored by this opportunity to work with Jim Billington and the dedicated employees of the country's oldest national cultural institution as we move ahead toward the 21st Century. There is much to be done, and we will need everyone's help to do it.'' The Librarian has assigned General Scott full authority to manage the day-to-day administration of the Library's internal operations, making Library-wide decisions consistent with the Librarian's directions and established policies. The Deputy Librarian will allocate financial and other resources, monitor the Library's operational progress and ensure that the Library's mission is carried out and its objectives are met. He will lead the Executive Committee and provide direction and supervision to the Library's senior administration, ensuring that Library policies are implemented. General Scott has been serving since 1993 as the chief executive officer of AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC), a division of the Corporation for National Service. The federally-funded corporation, established in 1993, recruits young people 18-24 years of age, from all backgrounds, for full-time community service. At AmeriCorps headquarters in Washington, D.C., he designed the organizational structure, developed the training program, recruited participants, established four sites across the country, and selected over 389 community projects. In the NCCC program, high school and college graduates help communities solved problems in public safety, education, the environment, and in disaster relief operations. Prior to joining the NCCC, General Scott served the Mayor of Atlanta, Maynard Jackson, from April 1991 to December 1992 as chief operating officer and chief of staff. His responsibilities as chief operating officer included providing public services to the city's citizens, dealing with human resources issues, empowering mid-level managers, all while dealing with the pressures of downsizing the city government. His chief of staff responsibilities included improving job performance in the various departments of the Mayor's office, including public relations, inter-governmental affairs, budget and finance, correspondence and community relations. In 1991, General Scott retired from U.S. Army active duty with the rank of Brigadier General after 31 years of service. At Ft. Gillem, Georgia, he managed a staff of 400 which provided financial, personnel, operational, logistical and training support for Reserve and National Guard units in the southeastern U.S. and the Virgin Islands. He expanded cooperative ventures between military and local business communities, coordinated the emergency operation center for the clean-up after Hurricane Hugo, and managed the activation of individuals and units in response to Desert Storm. His earlier career in the Army included stints in Germany and two tours in Vietnam. His decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, six Bronze Stars, and the Combat Infantryman's Badge. A native of Hunnewell, Missouri, General Scott received his B.A. in graphic arts from Lincoln University in Jefferson City, Missouri in 1960, as well as a commission as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, and his M.A. in counseling and human development from Troy State University in Montgomery, Alabama in 1982. Lincoln University conferred on General Scott its Honorary Doctor of Law degree. General Scott married Betty Jean Forte in 1962. They are the parents of two sons Jeffrey and Merill, and grandparents of Taylor, Desiree and Gena. The Scotts live in Alexandria, Va. General Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed an honor to be here. And it is a pleasure to appear with Dr. Billington to present our 1998 budget request. As you noted, Dr. Billington appointed me to be the Deputy Librarian, gave me the authority and responsibility to take care of the day-to-day operations of the great Library of Congress. I found that the staff, at all levels, has been extremely energetic, capable and are receptive to new ideas. In that regard I have started a facilitative leadership initiative that will help the staff improve the effectiveness of the workforce. Specifically, we want to better the relationship while at the same time pushing down authority, responsibility and accountability to the lowest levels. So it is a pleasure, and an honor to be here. It is also a privilege to help with the challenges that are facing us at the Library of Congress. management improvement plan We have developed a comprehensive management improvement plan in response to our own studies and the studies that we asked GAO to help us with last year. And so in the areas of collections security, financial management, human resources, and other key areas, we have made significant progress in fiscal year 1997. And with your help, we think we can make even greater progress in 1998 and beyond. The current management improvement efforts that we are undertaking are all part of a long-range strategic plan which also calls for new automation systems which allows us to work smarter and faster with fewer people. That is why in our 1998 budget, we have asked you to make a 5-year commitment to an integrated automatized system for basic Library operations. integrated library system Nearly every other major American research library, including the New York Public Library, has converted to modern commercially available integrated systems, and they have done this within the past year. We have checked those systems out and we now know that there are systems available that can handle the size of our own Library of Congress. I would like to direct your attention to charts that you have in your packet. What this chart shows is how our current systems do business. As many business analysts have said, we still do business by the smokestack method, function by function. [The charts follow:] [Pages 477 - 480--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] integrated library system Now, we have about 2,000 employees who depend on this inadequate system at a tremendous cost of time, duplication of effort, and upkeep to this outmoded technology some of which is 25 years old. What we want to show is that we actually have five large separate systems, and many smaller ones that support the Library's major functions. Now, it is important to note that these systems do not share data, and most or many of our important inventory records are created manually. Still we have only got it on paper, and it does not help us to get a good inventory and improve our collections security. So what we really need to do is replace these old systems with a single- integrated system to support our acquisitions, collections, circulation, public service, collections security, and our other related activities. So this new system we are seeking funding for will allow us to centralize control and security, and will streamline the work flow while helping us to reduce maintenance costs. So we are asking for $5.6 million in 1998. And another $9 million spread over the next 5 years that would complete this project. Now, all of this would make sure that we had the money to do the software, the hardware, the training and the data conversion so this would be the whole package. This would enable us to redirect some labor to other resources and critical areas. And it would also meet user demands both of the Congress as well as the general public. As a brief example of what this new system would do, this chart shows currently that if a member of your staff wanted to get a book out of the library and for some reason it wasn't in the first place they thought it was, it would take 20 steps to find that book. With this new system it would take four steps. mandatory wage and price increases Meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, our current services depend on your funding $14.7 million in mandatory wage and price increases. Once again this is the largest part in our budget request. We are keenly aware that the Congress has given the Library very considerate treatment, and despite our best efforts, however, we now have little flexibility to absorb such costs. During the last 5 years, we have had a net reduction in our workforce of 435 FTEs, many of them highly skilled professionals. Without congressional funding for these mandatories in 1998, we would be forced to cut another 178 positions which would impair our ability to provide services. Services that no other institution can provide. talking books for blind and physically handicapped In the same vein it is important to consider our request for $2.5 million to acquire 10,000 additional talking books for the blind and the physically handicapped in our Nation. Again we need your continuing help to help this Library in the future with our people and with our technology. This will enable us to do more with less, and improve service to the Congress and to the American people. We feel that if you give us the tools, we can do the job. The details are in Dr. Billington's statement. And in our budget justification request. We are now ready for your questions, sir. Mr. Walsh. I have some questions to be answered for the Record. [The questions and responses follow:] Appropriations Question. Overall, the Library is requesting total appropriations of $14.7 million ($14,663,651) in the various accounts for mandatory pay items and price level changes. That is 4.1% out of the 7.1% appropriations increase that your budget states is required just to maintain your current workforce and workload. Is that correct? Response. Yes, that is correct. Mandatory Pay Question. Is there any flexibility in that request? (Such as additional contracting out so that jobs don't have to be replaced when they are vacated?) Response. There is very limited flexibility because the Library must follow, as a matter of law, Executive Branch pay rules--including locality pay. The President has also proposed increasing agency retirement contributions in fiscal 1998, which would increase the Library's payroll costs by $2 million. This proposed change is not included in our mandatory pay request of $10.7 million. The Library continues to evaluate activities for outsourcing and successfully outsourced the CRS messenger services in September 1996--a reduction of 10 FTE's. The Library also evaluated the outsourcing of preservation microfilming (part of the Photoduplication Service) last year and determined it was more cost effective to keep the function inhouse. Additional opportunities for outsourcing are being evaluated (e.g., logistical services at Ft. Meade and security services), but we do not project a major reduction of staff from outsourcing activities in fiscal 1998. Last year, the Library forwarded a study to the Committee which described 20 outsourcing projects that the Library completed with an estimated savings of $3 million and cost avoidance of another $14 million. Key projects completed were binding services, upgrading premarc cataloging records, payroll processing, and custodial services. The Library will continue to evaluate activities which are not considered inherently governmental for contracting out in which (1) there is a potential for cost savings and (2) program services would be improved or equally served. Cataloging Arrearage Question. The salaries and expenses budget is the backbone of your agency. The book purchase budget, cataloging, and reference and reading room funding is in this appropriation. How many of the 111 million item holdings have yet to be cataloged into the collections? Response. At the end of calendar 1996, about 21 million items were uncataloged, a 48% decrease since the arrearage census was undertaken in 1989. Question. Where are these uncataloged items stored? Are they completely inaccessible if they are not cataloged? Response. Most unprocessed items are stored in the divisions responsible for them. Some arrearages are stored at Landover and in the Adams Building. All items in the arrearage are available for use--when they can be located in a reasonable time frame. For example, some manuscript collections arrive at the Library in good enough order that staff can find items from a particular year relatively quickly. Other collections-- manuscripts, photographs, etc.--arrive in such disorder that they cannot be made accessible until they are processed. That is why our dual commitment to security and service makes continuation of the arrearage reduction program so important to the Library and our users. Question. How much is in this budget to do the cataloging and to what extent will this budget reduce the backlog? Response. Approximately $50,000,000 is for salaries of catalogers and other arrearage reduction staff, who are responsible for keeping current with new receipts while also continuing to eliminate arrearages identified in our 1989 census. If we are able to sustain current arrearage staffing levels we expect to meet our arrearage reduction goals in FY 98. Our goal is to eliminate completely the arrearage of print materials and maps by December 2000, and to reduce the remaining special format arrearages 80% by 2005. Integrated Library System Question. The ``growing workload'' request for S&E is $6.3 million. The largest item is the $5.6 million for an integrated library system. This is the first installment of a $15.8 million 7-year program. I know you have outlined that project in your opening statement. What specific improvements are your trying to make? When will we see results? Response. Specific improvements include: improved security for the collections by tracking what we have and where it is at all times as the materials are processed and used; improved service for Library patrons to know ``Is the material I want available for my use now?''; improved workflows, cost avoidance, and reallocation of staff to mission critical activities; and improved and expanded system capabilities to enable the Library to migrate to a modern technology infrastructure. The Library expects to go ``live'' with the new integrated library system by October 1999, and expects immediate results in terms of improved collections security and service to Congress and the public. After the conversion and loading of all of the Library's large manual files (e.g. shelflist, serial records) into the integrated library system, and as the new system fully integrates the Library's cataloging and other processing activities, the Library will see the greatest results in terms of workflow improvements, productivity enhancement, staff reallocations, and cost avoidance. Question. How will this new system assist library patrons to locate their research needs? Response. The new system will provide improved service by enabling the Library to respond to Congressional service requests as well as the 1,100,000 annual inquiries from the general public by using for the first time a single interface to information about the Library's vast collections, as well as providing online access to 200 years of inventory information for the first time. The Library will also make all of these records available over the Internet so that potential patrons everywhere can learn what the Library collections have that match their research needs. Question. How will it aid the cataloging process? Will it produce savings and reduce personnel costs? Response. The integrated library system will improve work flows, avoid costs, and enable the Library to redirect staff to high priority mission work, such as collections security and arrearage reduction. This significant opportunity for reinvestment of staff expertise derives from replacing large manual files; eliminating redundant keying; integrating the cataloging process with other processing activities of the Library (e.g. acquisitions and labeling); facilitating the real-time exchange of bibliographic and authority records in our national shared databases; facilitating use of copyright records for Library cataloging; and providing consistent and up-to-date management reports and statistics. The ILS is also a critical element in helping the Library deal with the year 2000 or ``century change'' problem. Question. For the record, give us a timeline of when functional products or system components will be completed with this funding. Also, provide your studies of the cost- effectiveness and return on investment from this proposed system. Response. The timeline appears on the last page of the business case document, The Case for an Integrated Library System at the Library of Congress, January 30, 1997, supplied at the request of the Committee with these responses. The Library is also providing a copy of the Alternatives Document for the Integrated Library System for the Library of Congress, prepared by the Abacus Technology Corporation, November 15, 1996. A separate requirements analysis was also completed. The requirements analysis was used to complete the alternatives document and will be a critical part of the procurement process. [Clerk's note.--The first document referred to above is reproduced here. An executive summary of the second document is reproduced here. The complete ``Alternatives document . . .'' has been retained in Committee files.] [Pages 484 - 524--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Reader Registration Stations Question. The growing workload budget includes 31 new positions aimed at improving the security of the collections: 13 FTEs for reader registration stations and 18 for additional Library police officers. What are ``reader registration stations''? Response. The reader registration stations are a key component of the Library's collections security program because registration will enable the Library for the first time to know for certain that the people using our collections are who they say they are. Each researcher using any of the Library's reading rooms must first go to a reader registration station to obtain a Library-issued reader identification card containing the researcher's name, photo, signature, and a unique card number (Members and Congressional staff are admitted to reading rooms with their congressional IDs). The console operator issues a reader identification card only after the researcher provides proof of identity (a photo ID) and proof of residence. Staff then create a researcher database providing key information on each researcher including address, photo, and digital signature. In the event of a problem with a collections item, the individual who last used the item can be identified through the reader registration database and a follow-up inquiry can be conducted. Members' Opening Remarks Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much, General, for that very thorough and forward-looking report. I think we will open it up for questions now. I have several that I would like to ask. I did read through Dr. Billington's testimony prior, and there are a number of things that occurred to me. First of all, I think--if I could presume to speak for the Members of the subcommittee, I think we all have a deep abiding interest in this institution, the Library of Congress. It is part of us, it is part of this body. It is, as you pointed out, the most inclusive repository of all human knowledge, and in the Information Age this is certainly the place that would be considered a gold mine. Coming from business, I remember as this Information Age really started to take effect, one of the real problems was managing information. There are tremendous amounts of information and you can be stymied by the amount of information, you can get to a point where you can't make a decision because you have too much information. So I think what we really have to do, in all of the decisions that we make, forward-looking, is find better ways to manage that information, make it accessible and understandable. And it's more than access, more than just having the ability to get at it, but for people that are uninitiated, to help them to find it, as you pointed out, breaking that 20-step process down to a 5-step process. So I think we want to make sure that we are protecting the information, that we are managing it well, and that we are making it accessible. I think those are certainly some of the priorities that I would have; all in light of the downward pressure on spending on the Federal budget. But we need to be wise, we need to be not penny-wise and pound-foolish. We have to keep the big picture all the time. Just if I could, there is a reference to mandatory--the $14.7 million funding to pay for mandatory increases. Also, $11 million to meet critical growing workload increases; could you comment on what those would be, either of you? mandatory increases General Scott. Yes, the mandatories are wage increases that we have to pay, and then there are price level increases. For example $1.1 million would be for the purchase of materials for the collections. Over the last years, with inflation being what it is, our purchasing power has decreased. And this would give us the opportunity to make sure that we can replenish and keep the collections well stocked. Mr. Walsh. On page 2, Dr. Billington, your statement referred to $14.7 million for pay raises and we talked about those. I was curious as to this $11 million to meet the growing workload increase. growing workload Dr. Billington. Well, that is basically an aggregation. The largest component of that, $5.6 million, is for the electronic Integrated Library System. But also the---- Mr. Walsh. That ILS funding is in that $11 million? Dr. Billington. Yes, along with the other principal elements--security and succession planning, which is the planning for the future. More than 50 percent of our staff is going to be eligible for retirement in the period of this current strategic plan which goes out to the year 2004. Most of that is in CRS, where the need exists for the kind of specialists with the knowledge to support the work of the Congress, and where the knowledge has been built up over many years. We have very low turnover. But with the large emerging retirement group we need to be mentoring and transferring some of that unique knowledge that is accumulated by CRS people who live with the collections and with the concerns of the Congress over the years. We have to start planning that. Those are the principal elements, plus the important material for the blind and physically handicapped. Mr. Walsh. It is an interesting challenge. It is akin to having an elder relative in the family. If you want to get the family history, and you don't get to them before they are gone, you lose it. How do you take the institutional memory that you have that is reposited in these individuals and make that available to everybody else? Dr. Billington. We feel the major concern is to switch from a lot of process work that can be better done via electronics, into knowledge navigation. This means that we have to develop a lot of skills with the people we already have, and we have to mentor and transmit accumulated knowledge. internal university And we hope to give some vitality to this ``internal university'' idea that we talked about with the committee last year, which is not going to be a traditional university in the sense of a curriculum. But it is going to be a process of transmitting the unique knowledge and experience that our staff has acquired over the years to a new generation, plus retooling quite a large number of our people so they can help with the navigational task. To help you and others in the government and the country, to make better and fuller use of this enormous supply of knowledge and information that we have here right on Capitol Hill. We have 530-plus miles of shelves. We are adding 7,000 items every day, with a million daily electronic transactions going on. All of this is happening with 435 fewer people than we had 5 years ago. So we are doing a great deal more business with less. We feel we have very gifted and hard-working staff that is doing more with less. We have got to transmit some of this knowledge to younger specialists that we have to bring in and we have to retool and help many of our people do more skilled- type tasks in the future. And that is why the new kinds of leadership training that General Scott is bringing to us is so important. library acquisitions We get most of our materials by copyright deposit or by an elaborate system of exchange or overseas purchasing. We have a relatively small acquisitions budget of $8.5 million, for a system that added 2.5, million items to the collections last year. The fact is that in this last 4 or 5-year period we have declined from purchasing 930,000 items a year, to getting a little over 700,000 with a fixed acquisition budget. That is practically all inflation, something that we can't do anything about in overseas purchasing; we get most of our domestic items through copyright deposit. If you miss a year of acquisition, you can never recover that. If you miss a year of a periodical, the value of the whole periodical run is degraded. We can't regulate our output, unlike other organizations. And we cannot let the arrearages slip. We just need this measure of help to do precisely the things that you have outlined. Mr. Walsh. One of the goals and missions--one of your missions, one of our goals is to make this information accessible to those who are visually or physically impaired. And you talk about these book machines, $2.5 million for those. I would assume those are bid? General Scott. I would like to call on Kurt Cylke, who is Director of our National Library Service for the Blind and Handicapped, to respond. national library service for blind and physically handicapped Mr. Cylke. We currently serve 750,000 people. And we have approximately that number of machines in the field at our network of libraries, two of which are actually in New York State. We have a very sophisticated management system. We have a very well-managed, I believe, repair system. However, we are right at the edge of not being able to meet the needs of people who apply for the program, who are blind and handicapped. The $2.5 million is asking for 10,000 more machines to meet those needs as the people enter the program. Mr. Walsh. And those are bid? Mr. Cylke. This is done through the usual competitive bid process. Ours is a nonstandard machine that operates at half speed on four-tracks. So you get four times the amount of material on each cassette than you would get on a standard machine. The machine is procured through a competitive bidding process with the contracts and logistics division of the Library of Congress managing the procurement. Mr. Walsh. How does it differ from Books on Tape? books on tape Mr. Cylke. Books on Tape is a very high-quality current producer for the sighted world or for those blind people who can afford it. They produce best sellers and the more current popular types of things. They are a mirror image, if you will, of our materials, in that they copy--with no disrespect, but they copy our technology and our method of production. They are a small commercial operation that provide sales and rentals to sighted individuals and others. The only comment I would make is that in the blind community, there are 750,000 people using the program, our program is the only source of public library information. Mr. Walsh. This is made available through the library system in the Nation? Mr. Cylke. Through every State in the United States, except one, plus the territories. In New York, as I said, we have two library outlets--one in Albany and one in New York City. Mr. Billington. But they are made available to the local libraries. Mr. Cylke. Yes, through the system. Mr. Walsh. I have a question to submit for the record. Question. For the record, update the readership, acquisition, and machine data. Response. [The information follows:] [Pages 529 - 537--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] library networking Mr. Walsh. I would like to come back for more questions. Mr. Serrano? Mr. Serrano. First of all, gentlemen, let me also echo the Chairman's comments on the fact that we know that the Library is very important to us, very much a part of who we are in this institution. And certainly I am a big supporter of the Library. I hope that we can be helpful during a very difficult time and that any action we have taken in the past, or will take in the future, will in no way hurt the operation of the Library. I was interested in, in fact, how you get out this information. You were mentioning libraries, and if you could just take a couple of short minutes to tell me how that network works. Is it through regular public libraries, do you have branches? General Scott. I will let Winston Tabb, a long-time employee who oversees this operation, to give you that information if I might. Mr. Tabb. We collaborate very much through a series of associations and consortia with various libraries to be sure that the information needs of all the people in the United States are met. What we try particulary to do is not duplicate what is happening at the local or at the State level. So, for example, we have a program whereby if someone writes a letter to the Library of Congress with a fairly routine kind of reference request that we think would be answered even better at the local library, we refer that back to make sure that the person not only gets that information, but knows that they can get that at the local level. So we are trying to use each of the national information resources in the best way. We call ourselves the ``Last Resort Library,'' so that we provide very extensive collections that are unique to us, and provide resources for managing those. But people should go for best sellers or information they could find in the World Almanac to their local public library. We work very closely with our State networks and local libraries, to be sure that the public gets satisfactory service. on-line information Mr. Serrano. And through the Web, of course, you are reaching, you said, millions of people who are coming in. Dr. Billington. Yes, our entire card catalog is on-line. Previously you had to go to your library, breaking your back pulling the catalog drawers off the shelves; you can get that catalog on-line now locally throughout the country. Plus we share all of our exhibits that have been put on line now for a long time. And all of the congressional information, of course, on THOMAS, other automated State information, and, of course, the National Digital Library which is projected to get 5 million items of American history and culture on-line. Drafts of the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address are already on line. Civil War photographs, a great deal of this material, about 300,000 items have been digitized, and 1,700,000 in the pipeline. That is provided free. Mr. Serrano. How many? A million what? Dr. Billington. 1,700,000 are in the pipeline for digitization. We have a program which is ahead of schedule that the Congress has supported, first with the electronic American Memory experiment taking the appeal and usefulness of our American collections on CD-ROM over 5 years at 44 sites in schools and libraries around the country. Now we are putting thematerial on line in our National Digital Library program so that it is available to anyone with an Internet connection. You can use the congressional information on the THOMAS system. You can come into the Library exhibits. But particularly, you can benefit from the digitization of high- quality American history material. Not books, but mostly special format material. And that program has had the advantage of also helping clear our arrearages, which is something that this committee has been terrifically supportive of. So we have cleared 48 percent of the 1989 backlog of uncataloged items, while keeping up with current acquisitions. So a great deal of this stuff is going directly from having been in arrearage, where nobody knew where it was, to being electronically available on-line around the country. And it is this electronic vitamin enrichment for the whole library system and the school system of America that we think is one of the really exciting prospects for the education of the young. And we found the fascinating thing is that many of the kids who were not reading at all, but very audiovisually inclined, playing Nintendo games and that sort of thing, respond to American history materials on-line. They get into this, form their own questions and then begin to get into the reading and learning mode. So we think it is very exciting frontier and it is particularly important to get it in the libraries, because even a simple computer is not that inexpensive for many families. So having computers in the public libraries and public schools, and having this material available free from us, is an extension, we think, of what the Congress did at the end of the last century, building the Jefferson Building and opening its Library to the public. Now we are opening the Library's collections to the public beyond the Washington area, so by the year 2000, we hope every Congressional district will have a very active program making use of this for educational purposes. It is already beginning. General Scott. And you have in your package a picture of our new Web page, which you will find very useful in describing all the information we do have that is on-line. [A copy of the Web page follows:] [Page 540--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] inner-city outreach Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I had had a conversation prior to this meeting with the Librarian. And I wanted for the record to express a concern that I have, a concern which may not be totally well-founded but one that I need to put on the record anyway. And that is that as the Library grows--I am making this as a request--as the Library grows, and as we continue to enhance its ability to get out this information in a new modern way, we consider that the Library could be a great tool in helping some of the more difficult areas in this country, such as the inner-city, by bringing the information of the Library to the inner-city. A lot of people will be able to reach you from many communities throughout the country right from their bedroom or living room through this new technology. But many places in the inner-cities, people will be lagging behind for many years in using this new technology, unfortunately. So we must find ways to reach them and to encourage their participation in getting this information. information from u.s. territories And secondly, an issue of very personal importance to me: Next year we will celebrate 100 years of the United States' relationship with Guam, with Puerto Rico. We have had that many years with American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and the Marianas and Palau and other places. I would hope that throughout the years we have been paying attention to any information which should be part of the Library and that we continue to really get as much information as we can from our territories. We don't know, none of us can predict what the future outcome will be of these relationships, whether it will be anything from independence to statehood to new territorial agreements. But that relationship is very much an American relationship. That history is very much American, as much as it is Puerto Rican or Samoan. And I hope that the Library is reaching out and getting as much information as possible, not just from the 50 States but from the territories, also. Mr. Walsh. Well said. Would you like to comment? Dr. Billington. I think those are excellent suggestions. We do have quite a lot of material, but I think it would be appropriate for us to try to draw together a report to you of what we have and what our plans are. It is very much a part of our responsibility. Mr. Walsh. It is a real opportunity for our students to learn about those areas, too. How many kids in this country know anything about Guam, or where it is, for that matter, or even Puerto Rico? Mr. Serrano. I have to tell you, that invites the story of a Member of Congress who once asked me on my next trip to Puerto Rico to bring him stamps from the Puerto Rico Post Office. Mr. Walsh. I am sure you handled it gracefully. Mr. Serrano. I brought him back stamps. Mr. Walsh. With the American Flag on it. Mr. Cunningham. succession planning Mr. Cunningham. I met previously, yesterday, as a matter of fact, and I only had one concern. I would be more--personally, more apt with the expanding capabilities and requirements for personnel to support an increase in personnel, versus doubling up some positions. I realize that in a very few short years that your experienced personnel are going to be up for retirement and there is a request in there to double-up. I would like that in every job that I have had, but a lot of times we are just thrown into the lion's den and forced to learn quick. And I think additional funds to do that might be questionable, at least that I would have concern about it. I would like to look at some alternatives. You may have a person on a volunteer basis, knowing they are going to get the job, come in and intern to different methods by which we may achieve that. We can save some dollars there, and actually increase the number of total personnel without increasing the funding requirements--as I went through what you gave me yesterday and today. General Scott. I must say that when I first heard about the succession plan, as we call it, I was somewhat skeptical for the same reasons that you just talked about. But then the more that I understand about the Library of Congress and about how unique many of the functions are, that they are in the cases that we have identified, one-of-a-kind functions, and you don't find another librarian or another individual in another profession who does what these individuals do. And so, it was on that basis that, yes, I became a believer. This is something that we need to do to maintain the skills, ability, and most importantly, the services that the Congress has come to expect. Mr. Cunningham. How many billets are you talking about, General? General Scott. We have identified 37 billets that we would like to do in 1998. And then each year thereafter there will be another, say, bulge of individuals who have some of these unique skills that we would be coming back and saying we want to also make sure that we have in-house people or grow people who could take those responsibilities. Mr. Cunningham. I know that I fought for a program for businesses that intern students, and get a tax break because they are teaching them a skill. But in this case, would it be possible that since these people are not full-up rounds that you would be hiring, to hire them at a lesser pay rate while they are in an intern program? And let them learn the skills to save dollars? General Scott. I would say, certainly that it is possible that we could do that, and it is something that we could take a look at. Mr. Cunningham. I have not talked to the Chairman or anybody. But as we went through this yesterday, I did read through a lot of your stuff, and that was the only flag that I had. Dr. Billington. I think in principle, that sounds like a useful thing to do, and we could take a further look at it. There are two problems: First of all, the new people are not simply duplicating what the mentor would be doing. They would be working full-time. They would be working in an organization which has lost one-tenth of its staff over the last 5 years so that people are already stretched out. There is a full complement of work for those people. Some 25 billets are in CRS. They are going to be losing more of their highly trained specialists with 20, 25, 30 years experience, which is a kind of institutional memory for the Congress. Therefore, the idea is to bring these new people on not just to simply sit and have a tutorial relationship with the older person but to do a full day's work, but at the same time be gleaning over a period of years the specialized kind of talent that, as the General said, no outside experience prepares them for. Mr. Cunningham. It is just like in the military service. If we have a top sergeant in the billet who is very experienced and we are going to lose that person, we put in a private to learn his job. Well, that private doesn't receive as much pay as the top sergeant while he is learning that skill. And I think it would be cost savings, and that is the principle I was looking at. General Scott. Like I said, I could certainly look at that. I would like for Dan Mulhollan to address that when he comes up. He has had a lot of experience explaining this. Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Serrano, can I have some of those stamps? Mr. Serrano. Yes, I will bring you a military uniform, too. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Latham? turnover rate Mr. Latham. I guess the same line of thought that Duke had here, is can you give us a historical reason why we have such a high number of retirements right at this particular time? I mean, was this the initiation or the start of something 25 years ago when you brought a whole bunch of new people on then and they are now all going out together? Dr. Billington. We have had a very low turnover rate, about 3.7 percent annual turnover over the years. The Library built up very rapidly in the postwar period. So we are simply nearing the retirement time of a large number of people who came on at one time, during 1960s and the early 1970s. There was the development for the first time of a group of global experts. It wasn't really until after that period of growth, that what had previously been the Legislative Information System became the Congressional Research System. It now had a more long-standing and virtually permanent place and built up very rapidly. We developed this tremendous bank of expertise, but it also meant that at a certain point a lot of the experts become eligible to retire. General Scott. If I could I would like to call on Dan Mulhollan because he has particular insight in this arena. Mr. Latham. And he is used to telling stories. General Scott. And he has some good ones, and I want you to hear them. congressional research service Mr. Mulhollan. Twenty-five of the thirty-seven positions with the succession initiative are in CRS. The reason is the 1970 Reorganization Act, where at that point in the time of the Watergate era, the Vietnam War, Congress was concerned about being turned away by the Executive Branch, its use of Executive Privilege, doors being closed, and not getting access to information and analysis that was needed. As a result of the 1970 Reorganization Act, a number of things happened: Expansion at the General Accounting Office; renaming what was then the Legislative Reference Service to the Congressional Research Service, with expanded responsibilities to assist the congressional committees. The proposal was to expand the Research Service staff threefold. In the charts accompanying our budget submission you will see a real rise in the retirement numbers in the years 2003, 2004 by increments of 50. Our staff were hired in 1972,1973, and 1974 to meet those expanded responsibilities that were given to the Service in the 1970 Reorganization Act. And a large number of those people stayed. They are the Legislative Civil Service; they are, as in a number of committee staff as well, here because they are dedicated to serving the Congress. crs institutional memory What I am concerned about, and what we are here in this institution, is maintaining that institutional memory. The average life-span right now in the House of a Legislative Assistant is 1.9 years; for Legislative Director it is 2.6 years. And in CRS, we have policy analysts and information specialists who have been devoted to understanding legislation in every stage of the process for 18.5 years. I have only been here for 28 years. But my experience shows that---- Mr. Latham. And you know we are voting on term limits. Mr. Mulhollan. All the more reason. Mr. Serrano. He makes a good argument against it. Mr. Mulhollan. All the more reason for you to have someone who understands. We bring people from various disciplines to work for the Congress. And it takes, from my experience, about 5 years to develop fully a particular subject expertise within the legislative context. You have good industrial economists, but how does it apply to the writing of the law? It takes subject expertise, as well as knowing the legislative process, because we are dealing with disciplines that can assist in law- making. crs graduate recruit program Directly to your point, sir, Mr. Cunningham, what we are looking at is bringing people into entry-level positions. We have a Graduate Recruit Program. We also have been using volunteers, but you cannot preselect for the positions. You have to be concerned about offering a level playing field for everyone to be competitive. Mr. Cunningham. Would the President's initiative of having business look into hiring the welfare recipients, is there any possibility of looking at that possibility of using former military personnel or welfare recipients in some of these kinds of jobs? I am sure there are people out there who have been laid off that are statisticians, for example. That are now on hard times. Mr. Mulhollan. The question is that may well be possible. What we are looking at is bringing the best minds to you, to the task of making decisions. Mr. Cunningham. I assume that is it possible. I have run across people who have been laid off. They worked for IBM or someone like that and now their families are in disrepair. You know, I think the President had a good idea in his speech about getting business involved in hiring welfare recipients. We have got to put them somewhere. And every portion of the government and private enterprise ought to be looking in that direction. Mr. Mulhollan. I would--be grateful to work with you for any ideas you may have; what we want to do is get the appropriate recruitment net out to bring in the best minds to help the Congress in its decisions. That is what our goal is. Mr. Cunningham. I would just ask you to look at it. Mr. Mulhollan. We will take a look. We certainly will. crs staff expertise Mr. Latham. I am obviously very supportive of maintaining the quality and expertise that you have, because it is a tremendous asset. But it would almost appear that these people are working entirely in a vacuum today. I mean, is it that no one else is allowed to have interaction and to learn. You know, in a normal business you have interaction all the time, and there is shared knowledge. It would be nice if every one of us had someone following us around so that someday they could inherit the knowledge or maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. There might be more of us running around here. But, your argument seems to be, and I am not necessarily opposed to it, but that these people are actually existing in a vacuum and that no one else understands anything about what they do, and you are talking about specific knowledge. But isn't a lot of that already written down, their knowledge. Mr. Mulhollan. Well, most certainly. When you bring in, someone from a particular discipline, for instance, a natural resource economist who understands and can do the kinds of modeling necessary when you are looking at the trends with regards to a certain natural resource and its marketability and other factors. It is then bringing that kind of expertise and helping you with previous laws that have been written and what might be taking place in the future. An example is that not too long ago, in the transition, committee staff were looking for help on markup procedures. We were able to pass that expertise along. Political scientists have texts on markup, but it is not the same as being able to assist members and staff on the actual procedure itself. CRS staff are called upon for help and are called upon to assist on the markup process itself. You have over the years, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, people who, in fact, understand the drafting of law and its relationship to the analysis offered in various disciplines. What we are asking for is a brief period where, I believe, on a modest scale of 25 FTEs in fiscal 1998, 25 in fiscal 1999, and then 10 in fiscal 2000, and then reducing by 10 FTEs over six years back to our current number. The ability to manage the mentoring process is I think, very helpful. Of course, you are quite correct, we are not in any vacuum. But hands on, day to day, understanding what happened in 1986, what happened in 1966, with regard to a law, as well as the implications of the legislative provisions and case law that followed has been carried on by CRS staff. It is a complex learning process. Mr. Walsh. We will insert your prepared statement in the record, Dan. [The prepared statement of the CRS Director follows:] [Pages 547 - 556--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] legislative on-line systems coordination Mr. Latham. One other thing that is on a different subject, we have had testimony previously here on similar systems, the Clerk, the Government Printing Office and the THOMAS system, with the Library of Congress have all been mentioned. Is there a lot of redundancy here? I am just saying, do we have three different agencies who are trying to do exactly the same thing? Mr. Walsh. I think the point is well taken. Is there any coordination between--among the efforts between the GPO and Clerk and Library of Congress in terms of what is available on- line? Mr. Latham. Yes. That is the point. Dr. Billington. Mr. Mulhollan might want to add something, and Mr. Becker, too, but the fundamental difference was this: the THOMAS system was from the beginning a searchable legislative information system, and the GPO effort was essentially an electronic publishing system, an attempt to electronically publish this material. I think there is quite a profound difference between the two. Now, they have been upgrading this system, but we have also been enhancing the THOMAS system, and when you begin with the idea of general information and searchability on an information system, you are dealing with something fundamentally different. By the way, we are paying now for GPO information as we weren't before. Mr. Latham. You are aware the Clerk wants to set up a system also. Dr. Billington. I think there is a difference. Mr. Latham. How many times are we going to do the same thing? Dr. Billington. Herb may want to add to this. Mr. Mulhollan. The legislative information has, in fact, been a coordinated effort on the part of both the House and the Senate to provide an integrated information system for you. Now, there are three components. One is the creation of the data, and that is basically the committees working with the House Clerk or the Secretary of the Senate. Two, it is the management of the data, and that data is the responsibility of the House Information Resources under the Chief Administrative Officer and Senate Computer Center under the Sergeant at Arms. And then the data retrieval, is what the information system. And that data retrieval, is what the Congress asked CRS and the Library to undertake; that is basically the linking, how to retrieve the information. Those are the three coordinating components. GPO ACCESS is an excellent electronic document delivery system. What the Library and CRS are building is an information system, that is, providing for the interrelationship of data. The goal requires absolute coordination with both House Oversight and Senate Rules. CRS is getting direction from House Oversight and working with both sides of the aisle, in deciding on a staged basis, what is needed first. As initiated in the 105th, the legislative information system has goals for every 3 to 6 months for improving the system of the interconnection of legislative information. Both oversight committees are dedicated to minimizing duplication, and I believe that is taking place. There is coordination. Mr. Latham. I would just like to say, I think when I first came to Congress here, Dan was one of the first people I met, and you are really good. He has found a way to answer these questions many times over. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. I think it is a great question. You know, with this rush to make all of what we do accessible and all of this information accessible, everybody is trying to get in the act, and rightly so. And I think one of the things we have to guard against is winding up with a whole lot of different information databases. Then 20 years from now somebody saying, well, like we did yesterday with the Capitol Hill Police, why do they have a different set of books on the Senate side than they do on the House side? Maybe they won't wait that long to second-guess the decisions that we make, but I think it is a very important question, not to mention what the executive branch is doing. I have a few questions on CRS products to submit for the record. [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:] [Pages 559 - 560--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Chairman, by the same token, if you look at even in the military, we have systems that can't talk to each other. We found that in Grenada and so on. This ought to be a coordinated effort so that we have digital compatible systems in the States and here, in our libraries and in our schools as well, so that they can hook up and use it at the least cost. Dr. Billington. I should say that all of our electronic things come off the Web home page. We now have a discrete learning page that comes off of that. You can patch through to all of this Library material from our home page, although there are different kinds of material. And, the fact that we have our catalog on-line, we have our exhibits on, we have the American history material reachable through the same home page as the THOMAS information, all brings more people into the flow of congressional information itself. And I think the usage of individual aspects of our electronic outreach is much enhanced by the fact that people discover them on the quite user-friendly, free home page. You can get this stuff free, and that is very important. Everything we do has essentially been made accessible free to the public the way it was when Congress opened up our reading rooms. Mr. Cunningham. Would the Chairman yield for a minute? Mr. Walsh. I would be happy to yield. systems compatability Mr. Cunningham. My biggest frustration is over our full compatibility. To give you an example, all of us get business cards. Then you have to sit, and write them all down, and put then on either your Rolodex or in your phone book, and then the pages fall out, and you have to do another one andeverything. I was reading in an American Airlines magazine where they had this card scanner where you put the card in and bang, it goes into your computer. I went and bought it. But now I find I can't use it except with Windows 95, which we are not using yet. So that is the frustration. I have schools that people are donating computers to, and they don't know how to upgrade them. There are some companies now that are upgrading the systems so that they are ready to use. But whatever we recommend, with our libraries and our schools and this whole effort, is a system to where there is a least amount of problems at the schools if they want to access our libraries. There may be some direction we could put forward in recommendations, say, this is our plan over the next decade, this is the direction we are going and the kind of systems that we are using, so that we can upgrade those in our schools and in our libraries at the least amount of cost. And I think it would be very beneficial for the country. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham. If you would yield--and I would like to borrow your scanner until you get Windows 95. My point is, and you are probably not aware that, the Clerk wants to make this information available on-line to the public. The Government Printing Office wants to put it on-line to the general public. You want to put it on-line to the general public. All we are saying is there maybe should be some coordination. And each of them are asking for new money to do this. And I am saying where can we get the coordination so we don't have to reinvent the wheel three times over? Mr. Mulhollan. May I? Mr. Walsh. Yes. electronic data accessibility Mr. Mulhollan. As I understand it, the Clerk's submission to you is, in fact, to improve the creation of the data itself from the committees to whoever--is within the House, the Chamber for itself. Then of course--once the data is in a proper form and uses common standards, accessibility to what kinds of information and to whom will be the Chamber's decision. For the Library of Congress, the THOMAS system, at the request of the Speaker and the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, was erected for the public because of the work that had already been done within the Library, in providing information technology services to support CRS. CRS has been doing its best to get as soon as possible digitized information and analysis delivered to the Chamber for many years. This committee, in its fiscal 1997 report, directed that, in fact, all the responsible entities ensure that there will be common technology, to address Mr. Cunningham's concern, and that there would be cooperation. Right now, as Dr. Billington said, the THOMAS system does present to the public certain kinds of information. But it is clear that there are other kinds of information the Chamber needs in the creation and drafting of its work that is not appropriate to be before the public. That is a decision of the House. Also it is recognized that there is certain proprietary information for licensing that is undertaken here on the Hill. The public does not have access to these because these license agreements are contained processes. So there are other kinds of information that the Congress does not have out to the public at all. So there are those distinctions, if that is helpful. As far as the Government Printing Office and its access system, congressional documents are available for public viewing, using particularly the avenue of the depository library system, which is throughout the country. Is that helpful? Mr. Latham. You are good, Dan. Mr. Walsh. There is a good deal of discussion of this in last year's subcommittee report on the legislative branch and also in the conference report on the legislative branch. So I guess this discussion today reinforces that need for coordination. Mr. Wamp? Mr. Wamp. My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that if I express my true feelings about the Library of Congress or my friends at CRS, that they might either get the big head or rest on their laurels. So I will stay quiet until our next hearing. Mr. Walsh. I think that is praise. I have a couple of other questions I would like to ask, and we will go around once more if everybody would like. I am sorry. Congresswoman Kaptur is here. Welcome. Do you have any questions you would like to ask, or comments? Ms. Kaptur. I will suspend, Mr. Chairman, for the moment. cataloging arrearage Mr. Walsh. Your budget, as you pointed out, is about 70 percent payroll. It is very people-intensive. So if we were going to look at an area for consolidation or savings or other, we would have to take a look at that part of it, obviously. One of the areas that you do a lot of work in is this cataloging process, and you mentioned that you have reduced the backlog by 48 percent, which is remarkable. You had 40 million items in the backlog, is that right, 5 years ago? Dr. Billington. About 40 million items. Mr. Walsh. You are down to 20 million? Dr. Billington. Down to about 21 million as of the end of the year. Mr. Walsh. What sorts of items would these be? What kind of priorities would you set? Would it be books that you do first and then everything else after that? Dr. Billington. Yes. The original problem was to reduce this backlog that we had finally and fully inventoried in 1989. The backlog was then about close to 40 million items; our goal was to reduce it by 80 percent across the board in all categories by the year 2000. We are ahead of schedule. We are 35,000 items ahead of schedule in the book area, which is the most important, the most widely used, and certainly the most important for the Congress. And so we are upping that to get 100 percent reduction by the year 2000 in the book and serial categories, which are the most widely used by the Congress. The special collections have proved a little more difficult and intractable; far more items that are in the special collections are in arrearages. So we are still sticking to the 80 percent, but we don't believe we can commit ourselves, particularly in view of the staff reductions that we have had, before 2004. So we are aiming to get that 80 percent in the special collections by 2004, but a greater number, 100 percent, the book collections, by the year 2000. We are well ahead of our targets in book collection; not only books, but maps. We are going to completely clear maps, because books, maps and serials, are the things that are of the most direct importance to the work of the Congress. uncataloged materials Mr. Walsh. Where do you store these that are uncataloged? Dr. Billington. Much of this material is right in the three buildings here on Capitol Hill; most of it, in fact. But there is a considerable amount at Landover in the leased warehouse space there. Some of it is in other places as well, but most of it is right here. Mr. Walsh. Is it usable at all? I mean, is it organized in any way? Dr. Billington. Yes, particularly, say, manuscripts, which is the largest part of our backlog and our special collections. Some of these manuscript collections come in already sorted and in pretty usable form, things like the NAACP files. Or take the Lafayette papers, one of our most important recent acquisitions, something that has been hitherto totally inaccessible. We got that. That was acquired in microfilm version because they wouldn't let the original documents leave France. We got the microfilm copies. They wereextremely well organized. Other collections come in a kind of chaotic form--the other great acquisition we have recently had, the Carson collection, 10,000 items. Mr. Walsh. Carson? Dr. Billington. The Marion Carson collection. This is the greatest collection of Americana in private hands. We acquired it this past year, an extraordinary collection. The first picture of a human face, the first picture of an urban scene, the first Pony Express ride west. That is going to take a great deal of work to organize because that has been a private family collection. So the work differs. All of these collections, almost all of them, are accessible to use in some way, even if they haven't been brought under full bibliographic control. The archives, say, of Look Magazine or U.S. News and World Report, which we have, some of them have been fully processed. But even when they weren't, they were usable because you had indexes and tables of contents and so forth. So most of this material is accessible in one way or another, even if it isn't yet brought under full bibliographic control. ils relation to cataloging Mr. Walsh. Does the mechanization, the computerization that you are doing, for example, the five and a half million for the ILS system, does that supplement or augment the work that people have to do to catalog these documents? Does it speed it up? Does it help you to knock off that backlog any faster? Dr. Billington. Yes, it will help. General Scott. I think, yes, once it is installed. I think the important point we need to make about the benefits that we receive from this investment is that along the way we would start to see some inventory controls that we now don't have, that we will have, I think, it would be safe to say, in a couple of years. I think that we could say, too, that it would help the catalogers. It would also help the people who run the circulation. It would help people who run the warehouse because then we have this common shared database. But we wouldn't expect to see the big increase in benefits until we got the full system installed. Mr. Walsh. Ms. Kaptur? library priorities Ms. Kaptur. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I just had a couple of points. First, I want to welcome Mr. Billington and members of his staff here today. Just for the record, based on some prior actions by the Library, I would just want to reemphasize the interest of this Member in ensuring that your procurement practices make every effort to buy in the USA, whether those be clerical services or computer services, and I know that you have made efforts to do that, but I just wanted to reemphasize that while you are here this morning. Certainly, living in the city of Washington, there are lots of people who need work, and the Library can be a good citizen in the District of Columbia as well, and I am sure that our school system and other entities within this region would be more than willing to try to perform services that may be needed, rather than be acquired offshore. I did want to ask two questions in addition to that comment. One is on page 6, if you were not to get the increase you are seeking this year, you have stated that certain management decisions would have to be made to cut back on services. Could you elaborate a bit on what would have to be done if you do not receive the increase this year? Dr. Billington. Well, we would have to adjust in accordance with our priorities. We have sort of four levels of priorities. To service the Congress would be the first and the most immune from cuts. The second is maintaining, securing and preserving the universal collections so that we would fight to see that we don't suffer any further erosion in the acquisitions and so forth. The third priority is making the collections maximally accessible. We would reduce as little as possible in that area. We would have to reduce heavily in the fourth category of priorities, which is enhancing the value of these collections. In the third and fourth categories, it would be in those areas that we would have to really adopt the most serious cuts, and that would affect public programs that serve the Washington community rather than the broad national community. For instance, such things as public reading rooms, public access, exhibitions, things of that kind would have to be severely curtailed; bibliographic things, entries, things that enhance the value and utility of a collection, but that would not affect the fundamental comprehensiveness of it and so forth. effects of reduced budget If we did not, for instance, get the $14.7 million for the mandatories, which is the biggest part of the request, we would lose 178 FTEs. That is on top of the 435 we have lost and the additional seven we will lose because we have to absorb the costs of audits and some other things this year. So that would mean that we would have lost, since 1992, a cumulative 13.6 percent of our workforce. In doing that, staff downsizing would cause disruptive furloughs and RIFs unless we could get people off the payroll through some kind of retirement incentive program. Program improvements would suffer, not get done, including security of the collections and staff. We would probably have to cut back some of those elements. It would be very dangerous to cut back in that area. And also the other one that we would have to look at would be the automation reengineering, basic library and copyright processes, where we already have significant problems that the register of copyright can talk about; implementing financial management audit recommendations. We would need to cut staff that support our national library services before we would have had the opportunity really to reengineer and make our operations more efficient. So the net result would be that we would have to reduce public programs in order not to hurt the infrastructure as much as possible. But our national leadership role in cataloging would probably suffer at great cost to the Nation's libraries as a whole and to our own reduction of arrearages. cataloging progress We have made enormous progress. I would like to pay tribute to our catalogers. There are nearly a thousand of them. We have had substantial reductions, but we have had enormous improvements. We now have catalogued 300,000 items last year. The cooperative cataloging program produced 100,000 authority files, the first time we have ever had anything like that. We only had six or eight that we were collaborating with in 1994. We now have 213 libraries. The committee encouraged us to develop a collaborative cataloging program. We got 60,000 catalog entries from copy cataloging. So we are getting a great deal more done with less, but our contribution to that is essential. It costs more to catalog a book than it does to buy it, and if we were to substantially cut back in this area, it would have ripple effects throughout the whole library system in the country because it is an invisible subsidy. We conservatively estimate our cataloging is now worth about $280 million a year to the Nation's libraries, collectively. And thanks to the committee's urgings we have developed these cooperative relationships. This is an area, I think, of greatly increased efficiency. We are doing a lot more with fewer people. We are working cooperatively, but that effort would be placed at risk as well. So we would reexamine systematically what we are doing, in accordance with our priorities. But it would be very costly to affect at this stage the human infrastructure that we are talking about. We have needs to retool people for new tasks of knowledge and avocation, and if we do not have the most expensive single item, the integratedlibrary system that General Scott has spoken of so eloquently, in a sense, any other improvements you make are improvements in systems that are already becoming ever more obsolescent. The ILS gives you a base on which to work, knowing that the improvements you are making will be permanent rather than just keeping ancient legacy systems alive for another period of time. So, you know, we regret having to bring you an expensive thing like this, but, on the other hand, as General Scott indicated, it does have the promise of real savings later on, as we tried to indicate in that chart. There are just times in the history of an institution where one has to make a major leap. Anyhow, General Scott, you might want to speak to that as well. General Scott. Would you have an additional question, ma'am? potential cost saving Ms. Kaptur. I wondered do you see any potential for cost savings down the road when a large number of your staff might potentially retire and new staff would be brought in? I am just curious about early in the next century. We have so many budget constraints on every subcommittee, and I always look at the proposed increases with kind of a hard eye. Dr. Billington. I think there could very well be some, because people will be retiring, and a lot of people would come in at perhaps a lower level, so in that sense, but I will defer to General Scott on this. General Scott. I think we do see the potential that there possibly could be some savings in some functions that--let's say, in 2002, 2003; in that time frame, there may be some savings, because the ILS will consolidate functions once it is up and fully running. Then the opportunity to take a look at the large numbers of people who will be leaving through retirement in that time frame does pose the possibility that we could have some savings there. How many? It would be speculative on my part to say how many. Ms. Kaptur. It will be interesting to take a look at that number down the road, if there can be a compensating offset for anything that you are looking for at this point. I don't know if you really thought this through as a staff, but I would be interested in any information. It appears, according to your testimony, over half of your staff will be eligible for retirement, or at least 52 percent. Did I read the testimony correctly? General Scott. Yes. In the year 2004, I think, the people will be--about 50 percent of our Library staff would be eligible to retire. Ms. Kaptur. That is a massive number. General Scott. It is indeed. global legal information network Ms. Kaptur. My final question--if you can provide me any further clarification on that question, I would appreciate it, in terms of staff planning and cost of operations and salaries as a component of that. My last question has to do with the efforts that you are making in your multinational electronic database on foreign, international and comparative law, and there is a statement in here that 11 countries, I think, are participating in that and will soon be up to 20 nations. Could you give me a sense, is that more in our hemisphere? Which nations are participating? Do they tend to be functioning democracies? Who has indicated an interest in participating? General Scott. If I might, I would like to call up Rubens Medina who heads up our law library and this effort on the Global Legal Information effort. I will give you a chance to earn your money. Mr. Medina. This is a projection of our experience in dealing with foreign and international law in support of the Congress over the years, and we have almost 25 years of experience in trying to manage this data more effectively. Now, in this day of modern technology, it is giving us the opportunity to do so. But the expansion of the number of countries brought into the system is requiring that we seek support from organizations like the Inter-American Development Bank, which support countries directly, not us. These organizations fund countries to join us. That is, typically the manner in which countries are coming into the system. The World Bank for instanceis selecting its own countries. Of course, emerging democracies are very much a target of these funding organizations. The Inter-American Development Bank focuses very strongly on Latin America. The World Bank has focused on Africa and Eastern Europe, for instance, and those are the areas of the world that are currently being targeted for admission into the database. The countries that have joined the network are: Argentina, Brazil, Hungary, Korea, Kuwait, Lithuania, Mauritania, Mexico, Poland, Romania and Ukraine. These are the current members. These are the active GLIN stations that have been trained by us and are contributing in various levels with the full text of their own laws and regulations. The countries who requested attention for training and admission to the database that are currently trained include: Albania, Tunisia and Uruguay. Others to be scheduled for training include Bolivia, Egypt, Israel, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Russia, and Sweden. This is the way nations join GLIN. We have also targeted a number of countries that, according to our records, are in the interest of the U.S. Congress, we are inputting their laws and regulations ourselves in-house with our own existing resources. These are some of the countries in Western Europe and some of the countries in Latin America that are not sponsored by the mentioned funding organizations. Ms. Kaptur. So if you would take one of those countries such as Mexico, somewhere in Mexico there is a library or a site where they can connect to you, and they send you copies of certain laws? Mr. Medina. They send us authentic text of the laws and regulations as officially released to the people in the country itself. That is the way we do it. And let me just clarify that point. It is not just any library or any information center. We prefer to deal with information units that are within their own legislative branch so that we can, also, foster our own democratic ideals, and connect legislative bodies around the world. Ms. Kaptur. I had a request from parliamentarians in Greece the other day for some of our laws, and they are not on the list. Mr. Medina. Not yet. Ms. Kaptur. That was very interesting to me. You know, it would have been great to be able to call over. Mr. Medina. We are prepared to respond to these requests as they come in. We were fortunate that this has been gradual, and as we hear from them, we begin corresponding in preparation to ascertain their candidacy to join the network. We prefer to partner with the legislative branch of the agencies. Ms. Kaptur. If the women parliamentarians of the world wanted to connect to your system, how would they do that? Mr. Medina. GLIN is part of the Library of Congress home page. You can click--the home page of the Library of Congress on the Global Legal Information Network icon, the entire world can have access to that. There is a bibliographic level of information that we provide, and that is a summary, a relatively brief summary of the contents of rules and regulations. That is open to all. The one part of the database that is reserved for members of the legislature and agencies of the legislative branch authorized to access is the full text of the law, so that there is a privilege granted to those that are actually contributing to this effort. Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. That was a very complete answer. I appreciate it. Mr. Serrano. Very good. I bet you get a lot of requests for Helms-Burton, huh? Mr. Medina. Thank you. Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Serrano. Mr. Serrano. No questions. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Wamp. Mr. Wamp. No. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Latham. Mr. Latham. No. Mr. Walsh. We did not specifically address copyrights, CRS and so on, although I think a number of us have met with them individually. I would suggest that if any Members of the subcommittee would like to pursue any of these issues in more depth specific to each department, you could contact that department leader and sit down with him and pursue with him as much time and energy as you like. Ms. Peters, we will insert your prepared statement in the record, as well as a question on the Copyright Office. [The prepared statement of the Register of Copyrights follows:] [Pages 570 - 576--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] [A question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:] Copyright Office--CORDS Question. You are projecting a 140 percent increase in productivity from the new automated registration system (CORDS will require 2.5 FTEs to process 10,000 claims compared with 6 FTEs under the current procedure). Why do you need more staff resources just at the time your office should start to derive benefits from the investment made in CORDS? Response. CORDS is still in the test stage and will not become fully operational until the year 2000, when we expect to see an increasing number of claims submitted via CORDS by our largest remitters. We estimate that 50,000 out of a total of 635,000 will be processed in an electronic manner by 2000. The first actual submissions were made in 1996. Additional testing from selected publishers will occur in 1997. Only in 1998, when the system is operated by the Library, will we be able to move to a production stage. From 1998-2000 we will continue building and enhancing the system--this includes expanding the platforms, moving to cover many more types of works (such as sound recordings and motion pictures), greatly expanding the database engine, and continuing to test the system. Because we will be running dual systems for the foreseeable future, with the vast majority of works continuing to be in traditional physical formats, we will need the additional staff requested to achieve operational currency. It is important to note that we estimate benefits will exceed costs by 2003. By then we expect to have recovered our cumulative costs for the project, including both the cost avoidance factor of not having to hire additional personnel for registration functions, and the value of the material. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Wamp mentioned earlier the service that CRS provides. I would like to compliment them also. They are helping American kids do their homework through our offices. We get lots of requests. They respond very rapidly. But they are also a tremendous resource for us, and we use many of the reports, and they are very, very helpful, very, very thorough, and very, very unbiased, I might add. I think it is important that they not reflect a certain philosophy. Mr. Walsh. I have just a few additional questions on the Library which I will submit for the record. [The questions and responses follow:] Security Question. Last year, we asked you to seek approval from the authorizing committee (House Oversight) of your plans to improve security over the collections. Have they approved the approach outlined in your budget? Response. No. The Library's security management plan will be formally forwarded to the Oversight Committee within the next few months. During the 104th, the Library regularly updated its oversight committees on its progress in security planning and the Library will continue to provide updates. The Library is requesting funding for initiatives which have already been identified as priorities to ensure the security of Library personnel, collections, and facilities. These initiatives include: Reader Registration stations; additional police (for the reopening of the Jefferson Building); Copyright staff to help ensure control of copyright acquisitions; contract staffing for cloakrooms; and installation and maintenance of security equipment. The Senate Rules Committee has advised us informally of its intention to hold an oversight hearing in March in order to be briefed on collections security, as well as other issues. House Oversight has not indicated a hearing schedule, but we have been briefing committee staff about our progress. Question. Instead of hiring more in-house police, have you considered outsourcing? Many agencies have done that with building guards. Response. Yes. A careful review of the Library's security needs has been conducted, and to date, we have identified three functions currently, or scheduled to be, performed by police officers which might be suitable for performance by contract security guards. These three functions are roving patrols within the stacks and LJ visitor areas and entry inspection of persons entering Library buildings. A further outsourcing analysis is underway to identify additional opportunities. At this time, we know we need the 18 FTEs to perform functions which clearly require the services of a duly sworn police officer. Tabular Material Question. For the record, update the annual cataloging tabulations. Response. [The information follows:] [Pages 579 - 597--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] closing remarks Mr. Walsh. If there are no other comments or questions, we will end the hearing and thank all of you and return you to your service. ---------- Wednesday, February 12, 1997. ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL WITNESSES ALAN M. HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL STUART PREGNALL, BUDGET OFFICER BEN WIMBERLY, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ROBERT MILEY, SUPERINTENDENT, HOUSE OFFICE BUILDINGS ROBERTO MIRANDA, SUPERVISING ENGINEER, CAPITOL BUILDING Opening Remarks Mr. Walsh. All right. Now we will hear from the Architect of the Capitol. Welcome back, Mr. Hantman. You didn't realize that 50 percent of your time you would spend as Architect testifying before subcommittees of the House. We have with us today, Mr. Alan Hantman, who was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday, January 30th, to the position of Architect of the Capitol. We welcome you to your new job and wish you great success. It is an extremely important position, to all of us in the House and Senate, and at the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress where you have responsibility for the care and maintenance of the buildings and grounds. Before we get to your testimony, let me provide a few figures on the budget we will be considering today. The estimates we will be considering total $149.3 million, and a total of 1,425 FTEs. This does not include funds for Senate office buildings, which will be considered by the other body. This is your first appearance representing the Architect's Office. Please take your time to introduce yourself, and tell us something about your background. What made you decide to come? And we will include your bio for the record. [Mr. Hantman's biography follows:] [Page 600--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. If you would like to introduce any staff or other members, please feel free to do so. Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start with introducing my staff. To my right is Stuart Pregnall, our Budget Officer; Ben Wimberly, our AA, sitting back here; Bob Miley, House Superintendent; and Roberto Miranda, Capitol Superintendent. We have several other members of the staff who may be called upon during our discussions. Why am I here? I have just completed 10 years as Vice President for Facilities Planning and Architecture at Rockefeller Center in New York. Along about March of 1995, I was having dinner with my wife and my second daughter, Debbie, and her husband Steve. Steve being an MBA type of person turned to me and said, Alan, you have been at Rockefeller Center almost 10 years now. What is the growth path? Where do you go from here as an Architect? I really never thought of those kinds of things. I said after 10 years at Rockefeller Center, I can't think of many places I would want to go. Maybe I will become Architect of the Capitol. And it was last May, looking at an AIA, American Institute of Architecture Journal, I saw George White was to retire. AIA was taking nominations to submit to Congress. So I called up a friend of mine at a local chapter of AIA and I said, Jerry, what do you think my chances are? And he said, Alan, with your background at Rock Center, I don't believe there is anybody more qualified. So I put in my resume. I called up the AIA in Washington and talked to the executive director over there. A week later my name was before the Congress, so I was fortunate enough to be one of the 15 people nationwide who were selected as candidates on that final list. I am fortunate enough and honored to be here before you today. Mr. Walsh. Great. Great story. Mr. Cunningham. The pyramids would be a challenge. Mr. Walsh. They don't have his budget. Mr. Hantman. I don't have it either, yet. Mr. Walsh. Any other remarks, or you would like to go right into your budget statement? Opening Statement Mr. Hantman. Well, I guess the remarks are kind of part of the budget statement, also kind of woven together. As you know, I officially assumed my duties on February 3rd. That is just 9 days ago. As you can appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the process of mastering the complexity of my new position will probably take a bit longer than that. In the process, however, my first priority has been to prepare for this budget presentation. Mr. Chairman, as a preamble to the rest of my statement, I would like to say that since the Architect of the Capitol selection process took a year and a half and has just been completed, I have no intention of self-destructing on the 10th day of my tenure by coming before this committee and blithely requesting a 30 percent budget increase in this time of fiscal retrenching and cutbacks. As you are also aware, and as I am beginning to learn, the role of the office is a very complex and multifaceted one. It can fairly accurately be summarized by stating that this core mission of the AOC is to provide for the Congress on a bicameral, nonpartisan basis, expertise and advice relating to preserving the physical environment and operating the infrastructure supporting the Congress. Now, implicit in this mission to me is the assumption that in providing this expertise and advice, that I am part of a congressional team that shares the same goals of preserving the physical environment and operating the infrastructure supporting the Congress in a responsible and cost-effective manner. So I welcome the opportunity of working with the Members of this committee, of discussing the issues at hand, and of developing solutions that serve the Congress well. As you know, the AOC appropriations request for fiscal 1998 was prepared under the stewardship of William Ensign. It is that budget request that I present to you today. And I present it to you in the context of the first 5-year capitalbudget ever prepared by this agency. Now, clearly, due to the short time I have held this office, I cannot be conversant with, nor can I validate the merits of the projected operations costs or each of the 205 capital projects that it encompass. At this time I can say that I fully concur with Mr. Ensign's statement that there is a need to provide the Congress with a 5-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.'' I applaud Mr. Ensign for having initiated this systematic agency-wide planning effort, which has also included in-depth involvement by all of the agency's clients. On the House side this included the Sergeant at Arms, the Chief Administrative Officer and the Clerk of the House. The projects included in this budget, therefore, include all the needs that have been identified to date, and I am in the process of evaluating these needs, reviewing the priority level assigned to them and assessing their budgetary implications. Mr. Chairman, since it would be helpful if the individual budget numbers were understood in the context of past and projected future budgets, I have prepared a series of charts to illustrate these relationships. Now I ask your indulgence while I explain these charts, because I believe it is important since they deal not only with 1998 projected budgets, but also the last 5 years and the new 5-year master plan as well. The first chart shows two components: Operating and capital. The blue is operating and the red is the capital. [Page 603--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Please note that the operating budget has held fairly steady since 1993, going from $137 million in 1993, to $148 in 1995, to a requested $147 million in 1998. Increasing utility costs, mandated raises, et cetera, have been absorbed by cuts in staff to be able to keep this fairly level over the years. But 1998 represents a 6 percent increase over 1997, and it is a worst-case scenario. Clearly, our mandate is to explore ways to achieve greater efficiencies through appropriate means, such as privatization, outsourcing, consolidation of staff, achieving better utility rates, things of this nature. The operating budget will be decreasing as we bring these recommendations to you. Now the capital budget has, however, been steadily decreasing. You can see the numbers are $32.8 million in 1993, to $27 million in 1995, to half of that or $14 million in 1997. In my view, this is really no way to effectively preserve an aging superstructure and infrastructure such as ours. In 1998, the first year of the 5-year plan, there is a proposed increase to $54 million. I still need to examine the appropriateness and the priority of many of these projects, but let's discuss the breakdown of the 1998 budget itself. [Page 605--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Two main categories here: On the left, you will see the operations costs, representing 73 percent of the budget. Within that category, there is a cost of some 46 percent for pay and benefits, which will, of course, be evaluated. Utilities in green, you see represents 15 percent of the budget. We believe there are also savings in that category. On the capital side, there is 27 percent of our total budget. It is divided into three areas: Client-initiated projects, AOC-initiated projects, and cyclical maintenance. I want to talk about cyclical maintenance as we go forward a little bit later. The next chart illustrates the 16 percent staff reduction that has occurred in the AOC office in the last 5 years. It went from 2,400 people in 1992, 1993, to 2,034 people. This again is a worst-case scenario in the fiscal 1998 budget and we are asking at this point that we just carry it forward until we take a look at the organization and see how we can resolve the issues that are at hand. [Page 607--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] I don't know if the 16 percent reduction indicates that there was a lot of fat in the agency and that there may still be more fat to be cut, or whether the agency is already as lean and mean as it can be. I have asked my managers to analyze their current staffing levels with an eye towards achieving greater efficiencies. But as point of information, cuts in other Federal agencies at the same time period have been below this 16 percent level. Turning to the capital budget itself, the green over here represents the level of cyclical reinvestment as a part of the overall capital budget, and the yellow represents new facilities budgets. Here you can clearly see that the pattern of actual decreasing reinvestment from 1993 to 1997, it goes again from $25 million on down to $14 million in 1997. [Page 609--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Can you also clearly see the magnitude of new projects in the master plan represented by the yellow from 1998 on? I think it is reasonable for us to ask ourselves, how does anyone know how much to reinvest in a complex such as ours? We can clearly look project-by-project to see what needs to be done, and evaluate each project on its merits. Clearly, that is what we are going to be doing. But what is a reasonable benchmark to measure total budgets against? The next chart attempts to do this, to put it in some perspective. Several years ago the AOC office took a look at three university campuses to discuss their cyclical reinvestment budgets. Basically they average 1.7 percent of the value of their buildings and infrastructure, and on an annual basis, they reinvested that amount of money. [Page 611--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] A replacement value exceeding $3 billion was conservatively estimated for the Capitol Hill complex. Quite frankly, it is invaluable. How do you put a price on the Capitol itself? But here we have 13 million square feet in our campus. If we assumed 1.7 percent per year rate, such as the universities did, we would be talking about $50 million annual investment starting in 1993, and probably appreciating 3 percent per year. Now, another check on this is the IRS depreciation allowance for commercial property. We are looking at a 40-year depreciation generally, which would come out at 2.5 percent per year. If we use that as a measure to get a benchmark for us to look at, we would be looking at significantly more of an annual investment than we are looking at here. What this graph does, it plots the $50 million annual reinvestment level against actual and projected investments escalated at that 3 percent level a year. Up to 1997, there are fairly low levels of reinvestment. And what the budget currently talks to is getting fairly close to that level in 1998, 1999, and the year 2000. The next chart is a pie chart that shows the 1998 cyclical maintenance projects in red, in the lower right corner, of some $21 million. This represents 57 projects for 1998, including the garage floor repairs in the Cannon Building; the Capitol Dome Project and sidewalks at the Library of Congress. [Page 613--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] In green, we are looking at the AOC-initiated improvements of about $24 million for some 50 projects; some of them mandated by ADA criteria, some of them for electrical telecommunications systems in the Cannon and Rayburn buildings. The blue talks about client-initiated improvements, such as security installations, House Chamber reinforcement systems, Longworth cafeteria. And the yellow talks to projects such as the canine facility that we heard about yesterday from the Capitol Police. This is 1998 and how the capital part of this budget breaks down. And the next chart shows going out 5 years what is projected for cyclical maintenance in blue; AOC new projects in yellow; and client new projects in green. Once again I intend to review these projects in-depth to validate the need for them, prioritize them where they are appropriate, and report back to the committee with my recommendations. [Page 615--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] I thank you for your forbearance. I would be pleased to meet with individual Members on a one-to-one basis, if you desire, and to answer any questions that you might have right now. Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much for your testimony. [The information follows:] [Pages 617 - 635--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] capital budget Mr. Walsh. The capital budget that you have requested is $54 million. Mr. Hantman. $54 million for 1998 as presented. Mr. Walsh. Does that request reflect these industry averages, if you will? Or was it arrived at by using those--you used a college campus sort of projection? Mr. Hantman. It was arrived at, Mr. Chairman, on a project- by-project basis. Mr. Walsh. And what projects would be priorities for 1998? Mr. Hantman. Well, clearly, many of the cyclical projects we are talking about are 1998 priorities. Some of the issues that we are talking about, repairing the Cannon garage floor, for instance, that is in very poor shape and is something that needs to be taken care of, clearly. The issue of the Capitol dome is something that we need to look at. My concern is that the budget actually presented for the Capitol dome might be low. I have some photos of the last time that the Capitol dome was prepared and worked on back in 1959, some 38 years ago, and it was a very major project with scaffolding around the Capitol. People got up there and scraped 32 coats of paint down. There are issues of leakage that were addressed in 1991 on a short-term basis with the drainage over there. I think we really have to look at the Capitol dome. The balusters have been cracked. Some of these have been replaced and repaired during that time frame inside the metal of the dome. There are clearly leaks and areas to be taken care of. We have a full report here which I would be happy to review with you and Members of the committee over time. But what I want to do is meet with the consultants on this project, review what their recommendations are, climb up to the dome and see firsthand what it is all about. In 1959, when the last renovations were done on this kind of scale, the budget was something like $1.1 million. Escalated to this date it is basically over $6 million. My sense is the $3 million that is currently in the budget, 1.5 for 1998 and 1.5 for 1999, may be short of what we really need to do. So I don't want to present to you a budget at any time where I have to come back to the well and say, I am sorry; we underestimated. So clearly a lot of issues on this particular project will only come out once the paint is stripped out and see which pieces of the cast iron may be cracked and where the problems really are. But philosophically speaking, before we send a project to you, this was only taken through the design development phase. I want to take it through the construction document phase and be able to examine more what the realistic costs might be. This again is one of the projects that we would like to talk to you further about. Mr. Walsh. This would be a multiyear project; would it not? Mr. Hantman. It would be a multiyear project. Mr. Walsh. So the 54 million that you request for 1998, how much of that could be carried over? Mr. Hantman. There is only $1.5 million in this budget for that project being suggested for the next year. The reality is that we may need more in successive years, and the time period is important. I am not sure we want to see scaffolding when the next inauguration comes about. We will want to schedule that. Mr. Walsh. The last project on the House side, the monumental steps, I remember, took about 2 years to repair. It struck me as an inordinate amount of time. How long would you estimate it would take? Mr. Hantman. The last word from the consultants is that we could probably do it in two seasons, basically eliminating the mid-winter months. So the issue is whether we really want to start next year if we haven't gotten design documents far enough along for me to give you a more realistic budget. We may want to defer from next year and put it off until the successive years, still, trying to complete it in time for the next inauguration. [A question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:] Overall Increase Question. We can not increase this budget by $36.2 million. That is a 32% increase and it isn't likely to happen. Will you study this budget and get back to us with a more reasonable level? Response. As in the past, the Architect of the Capitol will work with the Committee and the limited resources it has available. As the new Architect of the Capitol I plan to review each and every project that has been submitted. In fact, I have scheduled the project reviews to begin the first week in March 1997. I will not only be reviewing the scope of the proposed projects but will be taking a very close look at the funding requested and the priority of the projects. I am concerned that deferring projects will not be the answer when the five-year capital budget indicates an even greater need of resources in the next three years. At the conclusion of my reviews we will be in a position to prioritize the most critical projects for the Committee. staffing levels Mr. Walsh. Is my understanding correct that you asked for no additional employee positions? Mr. Hantman. That is correct, sir. Mr. Walsh. And you mentioned the 6 percent increase was a worst case scenario. In other words, if you arrived at the savings along the way---- Mr. Hantman. These are mandated costs; those are increases in salary that we are talking about, increases in energy costs on the same side of the budget as the operations cost. The issue here clearly is that I am just beginning to get into this job, talk to the managers, find out who reports to whom and what they are doing and if there are any economies in terms of total staffing that we can effect. At this point in time the budget has been presented to you. It says 2,034 head count. I don't know at what point that will go down to, but we are looking at consolidation issues, and we are also looking at the issues of privatization and what that means to us. So that is basically the background on that. privatization Mr. Walsh. This issue of privatization has been a hot one in the Congress. What areas of your operation do you see an application for that option? Mr. Hantman. Areas certainly that have been talked about prior to my arriving here, the most logical one that people have been pointing to appeared to be custodial services. And the Ford building has just been privatized. I think some 36 employees were shifted to other buildings. Nobody was actually let go at that point in time. That is the first building. It has only been on line for a couple of weeks now. I think, taking a look at how effectively that is working, the type of service being provided by outside vendors is something that we do want to measure. There was a report by Arthur Andersen that was prepared for the Architect of the Capitol agency, and they looked at all of the areas of responsibility and services provided by the Architect of the Capitol. They came in and presented that report before me last Thursday. I want to go back to their assumptions, what that was all based on, and how they drew their conclusions. They have indicated several areas that they think might be appropriate, and they have indicated several areas where they think we are doing very well relative to firms on the outside in terms of providing the quality and the nature of services that are required on Capitol Hill. energy consumption Mr. Walsh. Another area I would think that has the potential for savings, although since I am new at this, I don't know what has been done, and you may not know yet given your short duration in the job, is energy consumption. There are systems available in the marketplace today that provide for energy conservation. Have any of those been implemented in the Capitol or the office buildings? Is anyone looking at that? Mr. Hantman. Let me ask Dan Hanlon to talk to that if I could. Mr. Hanlon. Yes, Mr. Chairman, this committee did fund a centralized energy management system a number of years ago. That has been fully installed and is operating today. There are many other areas---- Mr. Walsh. That is for all the buildings? Mr. Hanlon. Yes, a central system that operates the entire campus. It provides computer-based energy monitoring and management for all of the heating and ventilating systems throughout the buildings. Mr. Walsh. Were the savings derived that were estimated from that? Mr. Hanlon. Yes, I think the projected cost savings have been realized. And, of course, we have done a number of other things associated with that, such as adding variable speed drives and other energy conservation measures to all the buildings, and are continuing to do that on an as-funded basis. Mr. Walsh. I have some additional questions for the record. [Questions and responses follow:] Capitol Power Plant Question. Out of a total power plant budget of $33.8 million, $21.9 million is for the purchase of electrical energy. A $1 million increase is requested for electricity and part of the justification is for a ``continuing rise in consumption''. That's a little hard to believe with all the reduction we have had in Congressional staff. Can you have the staff document this consumption increase? Response. Actual kilowatt hour consumption has fallen in recent years from 321,462,265 in fiscal year 1994, 318,289,281, in fiscal year 1995 to 315,572,200 in fiscal year 1996. We attribute the majority of the reduction in fiscal year 1996 to the unusually cool summer. Cooling degree hours were 16.7% below the past 20 year average. It is estimated that this could account for 8,205,000 KWH in comparison to fiscal year 1994 when the summer was 4.1% above average. Cooling degree hours were 1.7% above the average in fiscal year 1995. It should be noted that there is not linear correlation between the reduction in staff and electrical energy consumption. Except for a possible reduction in some office equipment, cooling and lighting levels in office areas remain almost constant unless entire rooms or areas are closed. Also, there is no energy reduction in public areas. The projected three percent consumption increase, over two years, was included in the budget request based on efforts to extrapolate the recent net increase in KWH adjusted for the impacts caused by variation in the weather, the knowledge that additional cooling capacity is being added to machine and telecommunications rooms which is required because of new electronic equipment, renovation and occupancy of non- conditioned space such as room B-106 in the Cannon Building which was previously a storage space, and the fact that the Library of Congress' Jefferson and Adams building will be fully occupied by staff, the majority of which are being relocated from rental space. Question. There is $1 million to begin a multi-year project to replace the refrigeration equipment at the East Plant. This is projected to be a $16 million project. We have not yet seen the study of alternatives for operating the power plant. We also have heard that the General Services Administration has some ideas about merging our utility needs and capacity with theirs and DOD's. Shouldn't we wait until this situation is sorted out before we embark on this large renovation of the East Plant? Response. A portion of the Capitol Power Plant chilled water capacity (approx. 40%) relies on older chillers that operate with CFC based refrigerants (R-12). As of January 1996 the projection and importation of this refrigerant was banned. The industry has estimated that existing supplies will only last for two to three years. Operation cost will continue to increase as supplies of R-12 become less available. In addition, the chillers are in excess of 30 years old and therefore, should be replaced if the Plants reliability and capacity to produce the required quantities of chilled water is to be maintained in a cost effective manner. A phased replacement of these chillers is anticipated over several fiscal years in conjunction with other initiatives at the Plant including the introduction of automated controls, development of a thermal storage system, improved productivity of the systems and staff, etc. The replacement of the older (CFC chillers) was one of the operational criteria/requirements reviewed during the recently completed evaluation of operational alternatives study. Under the operational alternatives examined, the replacement of these chillers would be required if the Plant capacity and cost effective operational flexibility are to be maintained. The study on operational alternatives was completed in December, 1996, but has not been transmitted to the Committees of jurisdiction because, as directed, it is pending a complete evaluation of the study by the new Architect of the Capitol (AOC). William Ensign, the Acting AOC during the past year, deemed this study to be so critical to future operational integrity of the facilities that any recommendations from this Office should be presented by the new AOC. As a result of a preliminary overview presented to the new AOC, it is his determination that additional review by outside experts is necessary. In that regard, he has contacted consultants in the field of utility development and operation to seek their advice as to the validity of the recommendations developed by the Blue Ribbon Panel and endorsed by William Ensign. It is anticipated that his recommendations will be submitted by the end of July 1997. The Office has coordinated with GSA over the past several years as they have been evaluating operational alternatives for their system. During this process the GSA has supplied copies of their studies and reports for review and comment. The development/operational scenarios proposed require substantial new construction for which no governmental or private funding has been confirmed. In addition, the Capitol Power Plant's interconnect to the GSA system has substantial interface problems stemming from various operational differences between the two systems that would have to be resolved. Additionally, the GSA has not demonstrated in recent years the ability to deliver a reliable, cost effective service to many of its customers within the Executive Branch. Based on their own studies, the current projected costs of the GSA system without any major new expenditures, are substantially higher (by approximately 30-40%) than current production costs at the Capitol Power Plant. It is the professional judgment of the Director of Engineering for this Office that there is currently no viable alternative to the continued operations of the Capitol Power Plant being proposed by the GSA, however, the Office has been and continues to be open to proposals that will result in improved reliability and cost savings to the Government. Capitol Buildings Question. There is $200,000 to begin a $2.5 million project to replace the legislative call system and clocks. Outline that project. Response. The Legislative Call System is based on carrier/ line current frequency technology distributed throughout the buildings via the AC electrical system. This technology was widely used throughout the U.S. in schools and other institutions, but in most cases has gradually been replaced with newer technology. It continues to be used to support the House and Senate Legislative Call Systems. (There are actually three systems that we maintain. They are: the House and Senate systems and a simpler system at the Supreme Court.) Spare parts and support services are expensive and limited in availability making the continued cost effective operation and maintenance of the systems difficult. Additionally much of the signal generating equipment has reached the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced if the systems reliability are going to be maintained while the analysis of and transition to an alternative system is accomplished. The fiscal year 1998 budget request of $200,000 represents the funding required to upgrade certain failing components/ elements of the existing systems as well as initiate a comprehensive study to provide options to the Congress for a permanent replacement for the systems based on more appropriate technologies. The study will provide detailed cost estimates for the recommended alternatives and will be closely coordinated with the Clerk of the House, the CAO and the Committee on House Oversight as well as the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Question. Why is $650,000 needed for an ``integrated management system''? Response. The current financial management systems of the AOC do not meet the standards cited by the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 as well as those promulgated by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). In addition the functional and operational systems operate on varying pieces of hardware, making ongoing maintenance efforts more closely and difficult. Many of the AOC's systems were developed as stand alone systems and have grown up in stove pipe fashion over time within the AOC, thus making it more costly and difficult to efficiently share data between these systems. This situation has, in turn, lead to redundant data entry by AOC end users. Most of the existing applications reside on Unisys systems that were originally developed over fifteen years ago and were designed to use Unisys proprietary system software (e.g. DMS1100, TIP, MAPPER, DPS, etc.). Over the years there have been significant organizational, technological, and procedural changes surrounding these systems which have mandated new requirements and nullified previous ones. The Integrated Management System (IMS) Project is an agency-wide automation effort to develop a fully integrated financial information system. The first implementation of this process will be an Integrated Management System (IMS), encompassing Budgeting, Accounting, Procurement, Inventory, Cost Accounting, Work Order, and Labor Tracking (via the NFC payroll system). The goal of the IMS is to place the abilities of the AOC's financial systems in a position to (1) meet the so-called year 2000 fix, (2) implement the government-wide Standard General Ledger, (3) adopt the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board accounting standards and principles, (4) improve internal cost analysis and control capabilities, (5) provide more precise and timely information to AOC management, clients and the Congress. It is also a goal to adopt within the Legislative Branch uniform financial statements and to the extent possible create a branch-wide servicing function to achieve uniform functionality and cost savings through elimination of duplicate efforts, systems and applications. House Office Buildings Question. In House office buildings, you are asking for normal mandatory and price level changes plus a $5.2 million ($5,196,000) project budget. There is $650,000 to begin a $7.15 million cafeteria project in the Longworth building. Won't that interfere with the installation of the new elevators? Has this project been approved by the House Office Building Commission? Response. These projects will not interfere with each other. The $650,000 in the fiscal year 1998 request is for the design of the cafeteria project. Current plans calls for requesting construction funding and beginning construction in fiscal year 2000. The new elevators are scheduled for completion in 1998. The cafeteria project concept was developed in concert with the former CAO and his staff. Although this project has been discussed with the Speakers Office as it related to the Longworth West Egress Corridor, Snack Bar and North Dining projects, it has not been submitted to the House Office Building Commission for approval. The project would be submitted for approval during the design process. Question. There is $1 million to begin a $3 million project to repair the floor in the Cannon garage. Is this project going to displace parking? For how long? How many auto spaces will be affected? Response. There are approximately 300 parking spaces in the Cannon garage. Approximately 10 to 30 percent of the vehicles will be displaced at any given time over the three year construction period. It should be noted that spaces on and below the levels being repaired will be displaced during the construction phases. Question. Also, there is $450,000 to begin a $2.25 million project to replace the sound systems in committee hearing rooms. Will this encompass all committee hearing rooms? (If not, list those included and those excluded for the record.) Are these off-the-shelf systems? Will they be video- conferencing compatible? Response. There are over 50 committee hearing rooms in the House of Representatives. Most of these hearing rooms are equipped with sound systems that have limited capability. They were designed to support the public address requirements for the committees. As the committee structures, operations and memberships have changed, the demand for increased flexibility and functionality of the sound systems, has become a priority. The need to replace the existing sound systems with improved technology is now required if these committee spaces are going to be utilized as multipurpose facilities, as well as to support the needs of the hearing impaired. It is anticipated that the replacement of these sound systems will be phased over several years and to the extent possible, these systems will be specified with standardized, ``off the shelf'' hardware. The design and specifications for these systems will be coordinated with House Information Resources to assure compatibility with current or anticipated uses/technologies including video conferencing. Library Building and Grounds Question. The budget requests $15.8 million for the care and maintenance of Library of Congress buildings and grounds. That is a sizable increase over the $9.8 million in fiscal 1997. The capital budget is $6.3 million, of which the largest project is $1.5 million for copper roofing at the Thomas Jefferson Building. Two years ago, we provided $7 million for replacing the copper roof at Jefferson. Why is this additional amount needed? Response. Based on actual construction bids funding was not sufficient to include the replacement of the copper on the vertical roof walls. The replacement of the vertical roof walls was included in the design of the roof replacement project and the estimate provided by the consultant in 1992. By the time of the first solicitation for bids in August 1994, there was concern if sufficient funding was available to complete all the required work. It was therefore decided to include the vertical walls as an alternate item in the contract in order to have the flexibility to delete this item if the actual bids exceeded the $7 million that was available. Except for one questionable bid, all bids received for even the base contract work under the first solicitation exceeded the available funds. The second solicitation of bids ended with a contract awarded, excluding the vertical walls, just within the available funds. The replacement of the decorative copper roofing and siding material that covers the Book Stack projections for the Courtyard Inflills is imperative based on recent findings of the condition of the building structure. As work on adjacent sections of the roof have progressed, it has become even more obvious that the copper is pitted and cracked, failing structurally which allows moisture to infiltrate into the building structure. Temporary repairs have been made where possible to limit the damage to finished interior spaces as well as structural support elements. The replacement of the roofing with a duplicate finish is mandated to maintain and preserve the aesthetic and architectural integrities of the Jefferson Building. Question. What is the status of the remote storage facility building at Fort Meade? When will you break ground? When will it be available for occupancy? How much is budgeted for this construction (including the interior shelving, etc.)? What is the schedule for additional modules? Response. The schematic design of the facility has been completed and agreed on. Current plans call for ground breaking to take place in December 1997 with a June 1999 completion date. A total of $3,186,000 was provided in the Library Building and Grounds appropriation for the book storage module including shelving. The current estimate for the facility is $4,620,000. The additional funding is available in the account Convert and Maintain Fort Meade Facility in the Capitol Buildings appropriation. The current plan is to request funding for the second module in fiscal year 2000 and to request funding for the third and fourth modules in fiscal year 2002. Occupancy of the modules would be in the fiscal year following approval of the funding. The Library of Congress has projected the need to fund construction of the fifth module in fiscal year 2004 with occupancy in the following year. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Serrano? sale of the capitol Mr. Serrano. Thank you. You know, aside from the work that goes on on the House Floor that affects, hopefully, people forever, I think you have one of the most exciting jobs in this place because you have something as your responsibility, taking care of something that was here way before we were here and will be here way after we are gone. And I take seriously what you do. And certainly, I take very seriously the fact that you come with the background that you do. I am nervous, if you were there during the time they sold Rockefeller Center. I want to make sure that we don't allow that. Mr. Hantman. No intentions. capitAl projects Mr. Serrano. You keep talking about projects that you have to look at and review. I am wondering if those are the projects that are on---- Mr. Hantman. Those are representational for 1998. One hundred thirty-five projects are proposed for 1998. Others are longer term, larger scale projects. Mr. Serrano. Such as? Mr. Hantman. The longer term projects, we would be talking about sprinkler head jobs. It is a constant job that we are doing in multiple years, replace sprinkler heads; roof replacement projects; all kinds of fire protection and life safety issues that phase in over time that we may be requesting, say, $100,000 in fiscal 1998 for replacing smoke detectors. We are requesting 100,000 in 1999 for--depending on what we are talking about. So these are ADA requirements. They are OSHA requirements. They are life safety requirements that clearly have to be done. Roofs are constantly being looked at. Building and grounds issues in general are being picked up on. We are talking about an aging complex. The Capitol clearly is our oldest, but even the Hart Senate office building and the House office buildings are getting close to being 30, 40 years old, and in reality, based on IRS-accepted depreciation levels, their infrastructure, their mechanical systems, some of their base envelope issues are reaching the end of their useful life. We are taking a hard look at cyclical needs to be able to maintain all of our structures as we move forward. state of the capitol Mr. Serrano. Notwithstanding the fact that you have a plan to take care of this, if there was such a thing as a mandate for you to give us a State of the Capitol address, what condition are these facilities in? Mr. Hantman. From an annual maintenance, year-to-year budget, I think that the maintenance staff has been doing an excellent job. These are your normal costs of taking care of problems that you can see, small-scale renovations, things of that nature. In terms of capital projects where you talk about major jobs, the issue of taking a budget that went from $37 million down to $14 million is a reflection somewhat because of restrictions that the Congress has placed upon this office. Fourteen million is an unrealistic level to assume that we can keep thirteen million square feet of office buildings in tip- top condition, which is why I said when you measure $14 million in 1997 going to $54 million, we are talking about a quantum leap. Some of that may be possible to defer going forward, but some of them probably shouldn't. Many projects have been deferred over the last 4 or 5 or 6 years because of the tightness in our budget situation. Mr. Serrano. And you are saying they shouldn't go forward because of the tightness in the budget or because they are not needed? Mr. Hantman. It is a question of priorities. The attempt, as I understand it, over the past years has been to even out the appropriations request and not have a major spike or peak in requests. And to do that you have to prioritize your projects and say, this is the worst case situation; we have to take care of this project now. Although we would like to do this and we recommend it, let's push it off another year because the funding will not be there this year. It is a rational request to work with this committee and other committees saying that we understand that these needs are there, and let's see how we can allocate them where it begins to make sense from an overall budget perspective. Mr. Serrano. As we look at keeping up repair and maintenance, this is still a major tourist attraction nationwide. Mr. Hantman. Absolutely. Mr. Serrano. And we are not losing ground in that at all? Mr. Hantman. I think the visitors are increasing if anything. And maintaining the process in all of our facilities when those millions of people come through on an annual basis is certainly a major task. Mr. Serrano. I just came from a meeting of the New York delegation where we found out that the United States is number three behind Spain and France in total tourist visitors, but I would think that it has nothing to do with the people that we bring into the Capitol. It must be some other places. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Cunningham? Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Serrano's statement that none of us were here preceding these buildings points to the fact that last year I was listening to Senator Byrd talk about Cicero, and he was talking about the balanced budget at the same time. And at that moment, Strom Thurmond walked in and said, I knew Cicero, and he wants a balanced budget. So Strom Thurmond may have preceded these buildings. Mr. Serrano. I stand corrected, when you speak about one of the sponsors of the term limits. davis-bacon Mr. Cunningham. I am also new on this committee. Since these are Federal projects, they would fall under Davis-Bacon, I would presume. Have they ever taken a look at the cost savings if they could be exempted from Davis-Bacon? The average savings from exempting projects from Davis- Bacon in California is about 15 to 19 percent. Mr. Holmes. We haven't looked specifically, but the Department of Defense has done a number of studies, and I believe most of their estimates range between a 5 and 10 percent savings that they felt would come by eliminating Davis- Bacon Act. ada and osha Mr. Cunningham. That is a lot if we are looking at saving, and just a thought we might look at. Also, but now that Congress is under the same rules that everyone else is-- the additional costs for OSHA, the ramps, and the different things required for ADA compliance--are they going to propose an additional cost? Mr. Hantman. That is ADA and OSHA you are talking about? Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir. Mr. Hantman. Okay, Stuart is advising me that the Congressional Budget Office does have a study on that already. Mr. Cunningham. Okay. I will ask for it then. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Latham? Mr. Latham. No questions, Mr. Chairman. [Questions from Mr. Latham and responses follow:] [Pages 645 - 646--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] botanic garden conservatory Mr. Walsh. The Botanic Garden, the request is $11.7 million, which is an increase of $9 million over fiscal year 1997. This increase is almost entirely due to starting the conservatory renovation project, which has lingered. $8.3 million is requested to begin a $35 million project. I am told that just 2 years ago this same project was estimated to be a $27 million project. That is a 30 percent inflation factor in just 2 years, when construction costs really, I am told, have escalated by 5 percent. Is it reasonable to expect such a large increase in estimated costs due to inflationary pressures? Mr. Hantman. Jim. Mr. Ellison. Mr. Chairman, I am Jim Ellison. Mr. Chairman, this project, obviously, has a long history, going back to 1990, when the original report was completed that assessed the condition of the building itself. At that time the report contained a projection of a four-phase construction cost of $27.3 million. That is in 1990. This report also, of course, identified a full range of structural and mechanical and other life safety problems of the building. Mr. Walsh. That was 1990? Mr. Ellison. 1990. We began in earnest to design the renovation in 1993, and we have done our very best to hold costs down through the years. We have done a lot of value-engineering as well as trimming back some of the program elements that were originally set forth for the building. And the most recent cost estimate-- the final cost estimate--was prepared in January 1995. It projected a total construction cost of $30 million. And again, this was after we had belt-tightened all the way through the process. What we have done to that estimate, in order to bring it up-to-date for purposes of this budget request, is to escalate the cost for about a 2-year period of time, for the assumed delay in the beginning of the construction work. We also have revised the construction management fee from 5 percent to a more realistic 8 percent. We have also added some architectural fees. The design firm that has beeninvolved in the process will also be involved in a major capacity through the construction phase. That will involve an additional 3 percent fee, possibly. Of course the fee hasn't been negotiated. And we also anticipate, because of the delay in the project, that there will be some additional fees for the architectural firm to take another look at the final drawings and construction documents to reflect some changes in product availability. When we add all of that up and apply a reasonable contingency, we arrive at $35 million. I do know that there have been discussions over the past several years about what we might be able to do for $28 million or what we might be able to do for $21 million or something less than the real cost. To my knowledge, in the past few years the Architect of the Capitol has not promised we could do the entire project for $28 million; especially when you realize that the original 1990 estimate was nearly $28 million if inflated. [Clerk's note.--The following letter was received by the Committee:] [Page 649--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] I just want to add briefly that we are using a 4 percent escalator at this point in time. This is based upon the best advice we have from our cost estimator, who is an independent consultant. This is due to some rather dramatic recent cost increases in some of the products and building systems that are very pertinent to this project. During a one year period in 1994 and 1995, specialty glazing systems, and this represents about one-quarter of the entire budget for this project, were increasing at a higher rate than any of the indexes would suggest; 44.3 percent for aluminum and 10 percent for flat glazing. That is just in a 1- year period of time. Mr. Walsh. The structure is aluminum? Mr. Ellison. The structure is aluminum, and the glazing is a major portion of the job. So that basically is why we are where we are with this project. Mr. Walsh. I will state my bias in front of God and everybody, I think it is a wonderful embellishment to the whole campus. While some people may say it is not something that the Congress should be involved with, I would take the other view. I think it is something that people can enjoy when they come to Washington, when they are on the Capitol grounds. But I don't know if I have any support for that position. I know this has been an issue for this committee, for the subcommittee, over the years. I think it would be helpful to the subcommittee if we had some idea of the public support that the Botanic Garden has. Whether we keep it in our budget or it goes to the Smithsonian or it goes to the U.S. Department of Agriculture budget, I think we should have it. But it would be good to know what the public use is of it and what is being done to promote its visibility and what has happened since the construction stopped and the building itself has been somewhat dismantled. Mr. Hantman. Right. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is--of course, this is what the facility looked like before, and this is what it looks like right now with the demolition of the Palm House. Now, there are many conditions in the building, such as you can see the aluminum rusting out over here and somebody putting an implement through it, and cracked glass at the top. One of the issues regarding the pieces that are currently left at the Botanic Garden Conservatory is that they are not in a safe situation as it is. If we don't start doing something fairly soon, we may have to close it down, the remaining portions that are currently open, for safety purposes as we had to demolish the Palm House. I don't know the answer to your question with respect to public--has anyone taken a survey on that? Mr. Ellison. We have done some surveying, and I believe that we could provide that information as part of the record. Mr. Walsh. That would be good to have as part of the record. I suspect that we would have some discussion in the future on that, but I think it is a great facility. When you check those records and associate names with those, you will find that I have been there a number of times. Mr. Hantman. I have just been given information, Mr. Chairman, that there are some 600,000 visitors on an annual basis. Mr. Walsh. Is that right? I would suspect if it was in better repair that it would be much higher. [The following information was submitted:] [Pages 652 - 656--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. But it is a question for the subcommittee that we have to deal with. It is a rather--it is a large expense; $35 million, a huge expense. Mr. Hantman. The issue of whether the Smithsonian or some other agency takes it over, my understanding is that the discussions to date would be rebuild it, and maybe we will take it over at that point in time. Mr. Walsh. I have an additional question on the Botanic Garden for the record. [Question and response follows:] Bartholdi Fountain Question. Also, there is a project to do some additional renovations at the Bartholdi Fountain. The Committee funded that project several years ago. There was a formal ceremony at the conclusion of that project celebrating its completion. Will you look into this? Response. This project will complete the restoration of Bartholdi Fountain, a historic sculpture which is the centerpiece of Bartholdi Park and its associated basin. The restoration and renovation of the fountain was initiated in the mid-1980s. In fiscal year 1986, paint was removed from the statue, repairs were made and the statue was repainted. In fiscal year 1992, the Construction Branch of the Architect of the Capitol replaced the fountains concrete basin and water proof membrane; the allotted budget for this work for $244,000. From fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1995, outside contractors or the U.S. Botanic Gardens internal staff have maintained the statue via high-pressure cleanings. In fiscal year 1996, the Construction Branch repainted the statue at a cost of $22,000. The statue previously had received only touch-ups since the repainting ten years earlier. The current proposal will complete the restoration via selective replacement of the original marble coping, restoration of the light fixtures on the fountain and, upgrading the existing electrical wiring to the fountain, and addressing the fountain's water circulation and filtration systems. A total of $50,000 is requested in fiscal year 1998 for the design, with an estimated $350,000 to follow in fiscal year 2000 for actual restoration/renovation. The latter figure may be revised pending results of the project design. This proposal will position the Bartholdi statue and fountain for an ongoing, cyclical maintenance program that will protect this historic artwork. On October 30, 1986, after renovation of the fountain itself, a ceremony was held commemorating the Inauguration of Bartholdi Park and the Centennial Rededication of the Bartholdi Fountain which was first exhibited at the Centennial celebration in Philadelphia in 1876. [Questions from Ms. Kaptur and responses follow:] Questions for the Record Submitted by Representative Kaptur Question. Have you considered transferring the jurisdiction of the Botanic Garden to the Smithsonian or the Department of Agriculture? Have either expressed interest? Response. The Committee directed the new Architect to study the proper organizational location for the Botanic Garden in its report language last year. Such study, with the assistance of the independent experts, is about to begin and will analyze the merits of transferring the Botanic Garden to the Smithsonian Institution, the Department of Agriculture, the National Park Service, a private nonprofit organization, a new federal instrumentality, or leaving it within the legislative branch, The report, with the Architect's recommendation to the Committee, is anticipated to be complete by early May. The Smithsonian has expressed interest in receiving the Botanic Garden, provided that resources are made available for facility renovation. (Such a proviso is likely in the case of potential transferee.) We are not aware of any interest by the Department of Agriculture or the Park Service. In the past the Architect of the Capitol has opposed the transfer to the Department as inappropriate to the public education mission of the Botanic Garden. Question. If you do not get the $35 million to restore the Botanic Garden, I assume you would have to close it to the public. What would be the cost of such an action? As of this date, how long can you continue to operate the Botanic Garden before you will be forced to close it to the public? Response. The U.S. Botanic Garden exists primarily as an institution of public education on botanic, horticultural and environmental matters. Closing the Conservatory to the public altogether (including Congressional receptions) would substantially compromise the primary purpose for the very existence of the institution. It is therefore a measure that should be taken only with the greatest reluctance. Closing the facility to the public would also be a blow to the privately financed National Garden, due to commence construction on the adjacent site in early 1998. The main entrance to the National Garden is through the Conservatory West Display Hall. It should also be noted that closing the Conservatory to the public would still entail significant ongoing costs to the government to protect the plant collection on site and secure the facility. Staff would still be needed to maintain the collection and existing overhead glazing would not support snow loads if the heating were turned off. On the other hand, the condition of the facility presents imminent threats to the safety of both employees and the public and in some respects to the collection itself. A precise prediction as to when a threat would materialize is, of course, not possible. If it is evident that the Congress will not in the foreseeable future provide funds to deal with the need for renovation, I would request funds to analyze how to reduce any risk while the facility remains open to the public. The overhead glazing system, for example, is long past its useful life. Falling glass, particularly in the subtropical house, could inflict serious injury. Torrential rain, heavy snow or ice or high winds could produce loads resulting in glazing failure of panes or sections. This was one of the reasons for the razing of the palm house over five years ago. A failure of the overhead glazing would present a threat to the collection as well as to the public, and staff; so consequently even a failure after hours could be quite costly. Closing the building or portions of it during threatening weather would present administrative problems apart from the very negative public relations impact. In addition, the electrical system is well beyond its useful life and presents safety problems to staff working with panels, panel feeders, lighting and receptacles. The plumbing and mechanical systems are also beyond their useful lives. Some palliative measures could perhaps be taken to reduce the risk to the public and staff. Developing an interim fix for problems that present threats to the safety of the public or staff, however, would itself require additional resources for complete analysis. Such an analysis has not been made because it has been our assumption that funds for the permanent renovation would be forthcoming. In light of the Congressional action in 1995 rescinding renovation funds, however, we have considered the matter sufficiently to know that the spot inspection and replacement of glass on an interim basis would be quite costly. It would also have to be done by means that comply with current OSHA standards, an expensive scaffolding preposition, and such interim costs would not offset in any way the costs to be incurred by a permanent renovation. Similarly, electrical work to eliminate unsafe conditions would also not offset the cost of permanent upgraded electrical systems. A substantial and costly ADA compliance program would also be necessary. Certain code compliance costs (ADA, OSHA, life safety issues) are being routinely addressed in the rest of the Capitol Complex with funds appropriated to the Architect. These improvements will extend the useful life of other buildings in accordance with current standards. Unfortunately, such interim investments in this special purpose facility would be replaced by the necessary permanent renovation that has been deferred for several years. Withholding renovation funds would therefore present us with equally unattractive alternatives, neither of such would involve the productive use of public resources. Closing the facility to the public, including Congressional receptions, would still entail significant ongoing operational expenses, and any interim repairs would not add value to the needed permanent renovation. If funding is further deferred for the renovation our best estimate is, pending further analysis, that approximately $250,000 would be needed to make temporary electrical repairs and, if feasible, to install netting to protect the public from any falling glass. In the absence of such funding, or if the temporary installation of netting is not feasible, in my professional judgment it would be prudent to recommend to the Joint Committee on the Library that the Conservatory be closed to the public, including Congressional receptions, at any time when weather conditions suggest that this is necessary. Congressional receptions could no longer be booked under such unpredictable conditions. If this proves administratively infeasible, I would recommend to the Joint Committee on the Library that the facility be closed to public access altogether. energy conservation lighting Mr. Walsh. Back to the energy study, has anything been done in terms of lighting throughout the facilities, changing the energy consumption of those bulbs throughout the buildings? Mr. Hantman. Dan Hanlon, Director of Engineering. Mr. Hanlon. Yes, sir. The committee authorized us to enter into an energy service contract some time ago, and that contract was just executed for all buildings within the complex. Some 100,000 fixtures will be addressed. They will be replaced with energy-efficient bulbs and ballasts in the florescent fixtures. Mr. Walsh. Just florescent fixtures? Mr. Hanlon. Yes. Mr. Walsh. I will insert a question in the record. [The question and response follow:] Reprogrammings Question. For the record, insert all reprogramming actions or other documents that required Committee approval. Response. The information follows: [Pages 660 - 688--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. All right. We have some other witnesses that we would like to give the opportunity to come before the subcommittee. Are there any other questions or comments by Members of the subcommittee? Or Mr. Hantman or your staff? Mr. Hantman. No. We thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to come before you. We look forward to working with you. Mr. Walsh. Thank you. PUBLIC WITNESSES ---------- Wednesday, February 12, 1997. WITNESS HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON Mr. Walsh. We welcome you, Representative Blumenauer. We are delighted to have you with us today. Why don't you go ahead and make your statement and get it into the record. Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a new Member of Congress I would like to think of myself as a leader and the Congress provides leadership. But there are two areas where I feel our leadership is a little bit behind the curve and we have an opportunity to do something about it: Employee transit programs and employee fitness and wellness programs. Several years ago, the executive branch and the Senate began offering transit passes to their employees, and public and private employers across the country were encouraged to follow suit. Today in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, more than a thousand corporations, law firms, businesses and government agencies provide transit subsidies in part or in total to their employees. It is one of the most effective ways to reduce reliance on single-occupant vehicles and the attendant pollution and parking problems and the congestion that forces some of us to come to work very early in the morning to get to here on time. And most importantly, it is a way to avoid penalizing hard-working employees who want to do the right thing. In my own community, over the last 20 years, I have been involved in successful efforts to subsidize transit passes for employees. They were successful in convincing people who had never before had used transit to leave their cars at home, and the program boosted the morale of employees who relied on transit all along. Here in the House we have nearly 7,000 employees living and working in the metropolitan area, and another 3,000 in home offices, and we do it entirely backwards. Employees can park free, but employees who ride transit pay. Four years ago the Senate realized the folly of this approach and began offering transit pass options to its employees. My proposal would bring us in line with the Senate. When this idea was considered a number of years ago, the House offices did not have the needed flexibility in their budget to support such a program. As a result of the fiscal 1997 legislative branch appropriations bill, all office accounts have been restructured to allow the type of independent decision-making that I am proposing. It requires no additional funding, for the passes would be paid out of the participating Members' office accounts. And we would need only a small amount of money to implement and administer the program in the same manner as it will cost the Senate. And, frankly, far less than the parking we now provide to these employees who will shift to transit. Across the country, public transportation systems would see increased ridership and revenues from the House's participation in a transit pass program. I strongly urge that you accept this legislation as an amendment to your bill. It is a very easy way to provide assistance to WMATA and our colleagues here in the metropolitan area. I would also hope that you would consider efforts dealing with the health and fitness of our employees. It is commonly accepted by virtually all progressive employers, that promoting health and fitness on the part of employees improves morale, productivity, and reduces health care costs by reducing sick leave. Additionally, related to my previous point above about how our employees get to work, a significant number of people who fit the profile of our younger, hard-charging staff, don't have time to exercise, but many of them, if they had shower and locker facilities, would in fact run, walk, skate or bike to work if they had the opportunity to clean themselves up afterwards. Hidden away somewhere in the dark reaches of this Capitol, I am told, there are one or two shower heads that are available to our staff. I don't know. I have never been able to find them. But it simply is not enough to meet the needs that are here. I would strongly urge that you would include funds for a feasibility study to provide shower and locker facilities for our employees. There can and should be cost recovery similar to what happens for Members in our wellness program; not just for revenue, but a sort of regulatory mechanism so we wouldn't be inundated by a flood of people using the facilities. The Speaker as part of his greeting to the new freshman class, strongly urged the new Members last fall to use the gym, the fitness facilities to build relationships, relieve stress and in the short-run, be more productive. I think the same advice applies to the 10,000 dedicated men and women who work for us. And I would hope that we would be able to have such facilities for them and hope that you would start the ball rolling on something that would be widely accepted. I think it would make this place a better place to work. [The information follows:] [Pages 693 - 695--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much for doing something that I think we all need to do more, and that is to show our interest and concern for our employees and fellow Federal workers. And I think sometimes it takes a newer Member to remind us of how important a resource they are. And so I commend you for that. I do have some information we could share with you that staff has made available to me. There is--apparently, there are a number of shower and locker facilities you mentioned in the Capitol. There are some in the Capitol, there are also some available in the Rayburn and in the annexes, the Ford and the O'Neill buildings, also. I will provide those to you for the record. But I do think that maybe we need to talk a little bit more about at least publicizing what we have done, and making more facilities available to meet the need. So we will provide that to you. [The information follows:] [Page 697--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Blumenauer. Okay. Mr. Walsh. Also, regarding your comments about the transit subsidies. I think you mentioned this in your testimony, there is a Public Law enacted by the Congress. Then House Administration Committee brought to the Floor, to provide for what is now the Members' representational allowances to pay those costs; has a policy been established on that yet? All right. So, it is authorized. As I understand it, what would be required is that the Committee on House Oversight would have to establish a policy for the use of Members' representational allowances. Since there is no additional need for appropriated funds, we would not--we would not play a role there because we would be involved in appropriating the funds. Mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Chairman, your understanding is the same as mine. But I--I guess what I--why I was appearing here was the possibility of your helping along the way this notion, even though it was authorized as you point out, 4 years ago, nothing has been done about it. And a boost from your committee in terms of being able to have a minuscule sum of money set aside to actually deal with the administration of this, and get the thing set up and moving, as you say, it wouldn't require an appropriation of a lot of money in terms of the program itself, but getting it started. It seemed to me that given your purview of the entire administration of the House, I thought this would be an appropriate point of departure and that the people would listen and respond if you saw fit. Mr. Walsh. And I think you are right. I think it was good that you came. You made your thoughts known to this committee. I certainly have some sympathies for the argument that if we are going to support people to drive their own car as individuals, maybe we should be doing the same thing to encourage them to use mass transit. We as a government do subsidize mass transit for the general public. But I would suggest also that you make your thoughts known to Chairman Thomas and the Members of the authorizing committee, and maybe we could build some consensus for this change. Mr. Serrano, any comment or questions? Mr. Serrano. Thank you. I want to join you in congratulating our colleague for bringing up an issue that really does bear thinking on our part. I think that what you are hearing is our commitment to take a very close look at this, with the full understanding that the three of us who are sitting here--the four, actually, Members who are sitting here, are Members who know well the value of not polluting this country any more and getting as much physical fitness time as we can. In fact, this committee is trying to accomplish that every afternoon, but it is not an easy thing to do. So we take your comments with the intent that you brought them to us, and I know that the Chairman and I will look very closely at ways of publicizing what we have, and improving what we don't have. And, certainly, based the information that there is authorization to look at the issue of the transit passes, that is something that we definitely want to move on, understanding that I came from a community where there is not a single parking spot allotted to my district office. It is who comes first in the morning to park on the street. Mr. Blumenauer. I can't take away from my service in local government, being proud of the fact that I, as a member of the Portland City Council, eliminated free parking for members of the city council. So I think we ought to walk where we talk. I appreciate your admonition---- Mr. Serrano. Don't take it that far. You were doing very well up until now. Mr. Blumenauer. I think I will take the Chairman's admonition and get out while I can. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Cunningham, any questions or thoughts? Mr. Cunningham. No. Mr. Walsh. Thank you, very much. ---------- Wednesday, February 12, 1997. WITNESS ROBERT L. OAKLEY, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES, AND ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES Mr. Walsh. We will now hear from our so-called outside witnesses, who have requested to testify. First we would have Mr. Robert L. Oakley. Welcome, Mr. Oakley. Mr. Oakley is representing the American Library Association, American Association of Law Libraries and Association of Research Libraries, on behalf of the Library of Congress and the Government Printing Office. Mr. Oakley, welcome. We have a copy of your biography. I see, on here that you got a degree at Syracuse University. Mr. Oakley. Correct, sir. Mr. Walsh. We won't hold that against you, I promise. Mr. Oakley. I work for Georgetown now. Basketball rivals. Mr. Walsh. Yes. We resolved that last Sunday. At least we resolved it for a month or so. Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Chairman, could I have a question? Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Cunningham. We do have our full committee meeting at 2:00. Would you like us to stay for this or go up to the full committee for the votes on the rule? Mr. Walsh. My understanding is, and correct me if I am wrong, we have asked the committee staff up there to let us know when they do a roll call vote. When they do a roll call vote, we can run over and make that. If you would like to stay, maybe Mr. Serrano and I can come back and hear the rest of the witnesses, and then we will probably be called back. I am not sure how many votes we are going to have over there. We may do a stay for all the votes and then come back. Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir. Mr. Walsh. We will play it by ear. Mr. Latham. But someone is monitoring it? Mr. Walsh. Someone is going to make sure they call us. Mr. Latham. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Oakley, please, go ahead. Mr. Oakley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert Oakley and I am professor of law and director of the law library at the Georgetown University Law Center. I am honored to be here today to appear on behalf of the American Library Association, the American Association of Law Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries and the Special Libraries Association. Our purpose in coming here today is to urge you to support the budget requests for the Library of Congress and GPO's Federal Depository Library Program. We do respectfully ask that our written statement submitted to this committee earlier be added to the public record of these hearings. Mr. Walsh. Without objection. Mr. Oakley. Thank you. New technologies have led to a significant transformation in how Americans create, manage, use, and preserve information. Libraries are at the forefront of this change, both as they work to make their collections available electronically and also as they use information created by the government and by others as well. The Library of Congress participates in a variety of digital projects to explore the full potential of digital libraries and to make the information available to its constituents and to the American public. The National Digital Library Program has increased the number of collections available on the World Wide Web to more than 350,000 digital files. We applaud this growth because it brings some of the unique treasures of the Library of Congress into our classrooms, into our libraries and into our homes. The Global Legal Information Network, about which there was some discussion this morning, is certainly a unique and valuable international cooperative program through which participating nations provide electronic access to their laws and regulations. GLIN enables the Law Library of Congress to better serve you and your constituents. The development of an integrated library system at the Library of Congress, by integrating key library functions, will allow for greater efficiency and productivity and will result in better service to library users. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we are concerned that the GAO now questions LC's authority to retain both direct and indirect funds from U.S. research libraries that participate in the overseas acquisitions program. This is an important program for America's research libraries, and we want to work with you closely to clarify the library's authority in this regard. The Library of Congress performs vital functions for Congress and for the Nation. It has taken a leadership role in the digitization of its collections and in the use of new information technology. We appreciate your continued support for these important activities. Turning now to GPO, we support full funding for the Federal Depository Library Program. As more government information is made available electronically, depository libraries and librarians are more important than ever to assist the average user in navigating the complex layers of technology to find the information they need. In 1995, an estimated 237,000 users each week were provided with expert service in locating and using depository materials at 1,370 partner libraries in nearly every congressional district. The Depository Library Program is truly one of the most effective and successful partnerships between the Federal Government and the American people today. The development of GPO access is commendable. In October 1996, users retrieved from that system nearly 3 milliondocuments. The addition of key congressional regulatory and business information in the near future will further increase the importance of that system and increase the public use of the system. In June of 1996, the Government Printing Office completed the study requested by Congress to analyze the complex issues regarding the government's use of electronic information dissemination technology. As this important transition goes forward, we in the library community do have several concerns. First, there must be an easy means for users to identify and locate the information they need. The Government Printing Office has developed a web side that provides three indispensable finding tools for the public. This development must continue. Second, valuable government information resources disappear daily from agency web sites. A systematic and comprehensive national program for assuring the preservation and permanent public access of electronic government information is sorely lacking and must be developed. And third, important government information resources are increasingly being removed from the public domain. This kind of erosion of public access occurs when agencies use exclusive contracts or licensing agreements that prohibit redissemination. Such contracts and agreements are contrary to the policy of open access to government information, and they defeat the purpose of the Depository Library Program. To conclude, Mr. Chairman, we are at the subcommittee to fully support the budget requests for the Library of Congress and for the Federal Depository Library Program in this time of transition. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. [The information follows:] [Pages 702 - 741--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much for your testimony. Just one question. The Library of Congress, as you know, is in the process of digitizing lots of information. They have to make priorities. Obviously, they can't do it all, and they have to determine what comes first. Are organizations like the ones you represent involved in setting those priorities for the Library of Congress in terms of what becomes available electronically? Mr. Oakley. In terms of just working with them internally? Mr. Walsh. Yes. Is there an advisory, ad hoc advisory structure? Mr. Oakley. I am not on any specific advisory committees, but I do know that they seek input on quite a regular basis from a variety of groups. There is an organization called the Network Advisory Committee, which is set up to advise the Librarian of Congress on networking-related issues, and other groups that would provide input into some of those kinds of decisions. Mr. Walsh. Given what knowledge you have currently, would you agree that the decisions the Library of Congress is making so far on what information it makes available first on a priority basis are the right decisions? Mr. Oakley. Without micromanaging, yes, I think many of the projects they have done are very exciting. If you have an opportunity to look at some of them on the World Wide Web, I think you will agree. There are some Civil War photographs and many, many historic documents that are very exciting. Indeed, I would extend an offer to you or to other Members of the committee or staff to come to Georgetown, if you have the opportunity, not only to see a depository library, a working depository library, but to look at some of these electronic resources on the World Wide Web. Mr. Walsh. Just one last note, and it is a personal note, being in the library community, I would suspect it is fairly closely knit. There is a fellow named Dan Casey from Syracuse, who was very involved in the Library Organization. Do you recall him? Mr. Oakley. He is not a person I know. I did go to library school in Syracuse. Mr. Walsh. He is deceased now. He was a tremendous advocate for the Public Library System; as you are, too. Mr. Serrano. Mr. Serrano. Just one comment. I know you have supported what the Library of Congress is doing. In my conversations with them, I was discussing the fact that they have access to a lot of information in this country and they commented to me that sometimes that information gets divided between them and the Smithsonian. And I was just wondering if you, as one who has not come here only as a witness but as one who is head of some organizations, any thoughts on how we can deal with that? It seems that is a bigger problem than I thought. For instance, I was discussing with them the fact that the Sinatra family is interested in turning everything from that 60-year career over to the Library, but then the Smithsonian wants part of it, too. And some would be on display and some would be in the Archives. So all of a sudden, you have a family who says here, and two institutions saying how do we use it, how do we take it? And how does the public, which is my interest, get to see what this means in this particular case? Mr. Oakley. I don't think the library community would necessarily have a position on which of two public institutions should house this material. But I do think that the overriding issue is the last one that you flagged, which is to make sure that these treasures are not lost to the American public. And that could well be done through either the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian. Mr. Serrano. But not both? Mr. Oakley. Obviously, again, they can't be in two places at the same time, of course. Although to the extent that organizations---- Mr. Serrano. Well, with regard to being in two places at the same time, I should have clarified this. The Smithsonian may want Cole Porter's piano and the Library may want Cole Porter's arrangements, or Ellington's, and it gets into that. And it is not somewhere where you can take a young music student or anyone and say, look, here is a national treasure and it is available for you to look at. Mr. Oakley. There are interesting aspects of that. Clearly, the Library's primary business is in the collection of written documents. That might include sheet music or phonograms and so on. It is less likely to include artifacts such as a piano itself, although it has been known. But another thing that they can do, where they can share, is to the extent that these digitization projects move forward, they can be in more than one place at the same time. And, indeed, some of the kinds of projects that are under way are for the digitization of music and that music could then be made available over the World Wide Web and shared with everyone. It could be very exciting. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Latham, any questions? Mr. Latham. Being from Iowa, I think we should be very conscious of the Music Man, Meredith Wilson. I live 30 miles from River City. Mr. Oakley. I have always been very much in the forefront of the development of network resourcing. We appreciate your efforts. Mr. Latham. We have fiber optics in almost every county and community in the State right now. Mr. Walsh. Iowa has been way ahead for a long time. That may explain why you are such a good pool player. Mr. Latham. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. Being from River City. He is, too. Mr. Latham. I am still waiting for the check, too. Mr. Walsh. We have just a couple more witnesses, and we have about 11 minutes. So we will let Mr. Oakley go and thank him for his testimony. Mr. Walsh. If we could bring the other witnesses before us, that would keep you from having to come back again sometime, if we could bring the other three forward. Thank you. Mr. Oakley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Serrano. Thank you. ---------- Wednesday, February 12, 1997. WITNESSES JOEL STERN, AFSCME LOCAL 2477 CHRISTINE SCHOLLENBERGER, AFSCME LOCAL 2910 DENNIS M. ROTH, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Mr. Walsh. We have Joel Stern, AFSCME Local 2477, Library of Congress; Christine Schollenberger, AFSCME Local 2910, Library of Congress; and also Dennis M. Roth, Congressional Research Employees Association, Congressional Research Service. Welcome, all of you. I believe we have your testimony. We do. We have curriculum vitae. Why don't you decide who goes first and we will sit and listen. Ms. Schollenberger. We are very democratic. Mr. Walsh. Please. Ms. Schollenberger. My name is Christine Schollenberger and I am the President of AFSCME Local 2910. We represent approximately 1,400 professional employees at the Library. We have our professionals, our librarians. We represent catalogers, reference people. We represent people in copyright, nurses, computer specialists, attorneys, legal specialists, basically your employees who are from a GS-9 to a GS-15 but are nonsupervisory. We are happy to be here today and we are here to express some concerns and to certainly support the Library's budget request. Not to be repetitive, needless to say, we support the Integrated Library System and the other automation efforts. I would suggest to you, we were invited to a very interesting briefing on the ILS that was short, to the point and very comprehensive. You might want to take advantage of that. I think what is very interesting is that the reason the Library is moving now is that now is the time that the technology has been available and the sophistication of the technology. Small libraries have had integrated systems but they haven't been systems which the Library, though, was suited to something of our size. So the State of Illinois now has integrated. There are some big projects. So the technology is there, it is on the edge and that is why the Library, I think, is ready to go now. And I think that is something for you to consider. In the area of security, we are happy to welcome the new Director of Security. We are hoping that he comes on board soon and provides us with a coordinated, comprehensive security system which is aimed not only at our collectionsbut also at providing a secure environment for all of us here on Capitol Hill. One of the things that has occurred to us, and it is-- whether it is a perception or not, is that we all read the newspapers, but those of us at the Library, when something disappears or something happens, it appears that it is always a knee-jerk reaction. It began with the closing of the stacks, and it continues even today apparently, when we mysteriously find doors locked in the morning that were open the previous day. So we are looking forward to this Director of Security and a comprehensive program. It is our belief at 2910 that the Library has been very conservative in its request for more staff. We encourage you to support this. We are doing with less. I see it every day. There is a strain in certain areas of the Library. People are very conscious of meeting goals. We do need some more staff to help us. We want to get away from some of the repetitive, time-consuming aspects of librarianship and get on perhaps with some more productive projects which we are very well skilled for. However, I also do believe that the Library also needs to take a look at the staff that we have there and I would encourage you to encourage the Library that perhaps we should look at how we are utilizing the staff that we have. I think you realized today that we have people who have been there 28, 30 years; it is the one job they had. They came very well-skilled but, you know, in that period of time you get new degrees, you develop new skills. There is a life out there. We have been asking the Library for a long period of time to seriously look at a skilled staff. If we could promote more from within, better utilize, perhaps hire from the bottom and nurture our staff up, this could provide a considerable cost savings. And for 2910, in the area of labor relations, we are always asking for more input before rather than after. We encourage you to support our remaining under the FLRA. Our experience in 2910 is that we just concluded bargaining, our famous contract over more than 2 years, and it was successful and it was successful with the help of the facilities of the FLRA. So we think it works and we don't think it should change. And thank you. Mr. Walsh. You are welcome. [The information follows:] [Pages 746 - 752--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Mr. Stern. Mr. Stern. Okay. There is a good deal of overlap, Congressman. Perhaps first, I should introduce myself. I am the President of AFSCME Local 2477. My name is Joel Stern. There is a lot of overlap in what we have to say. Thank you very much for letting us make our testimony today. One of the points that Christine just touched on is the question of how staff are promoting health and library positions that come open and that is a crucial issue for people in my bargaining unit. I represent people who are considered nonprofessional employees at the Library of Congress. We are the people who do perhaps what you consider some of the less creative work. But there is really a continuum in the Library that perhaps doesn't exist in a lot of Federal agencies in terms of where the work begins and where employees begin working at the bottom of the wage scale and what happens at higher grades. And so what I would like to stress is that there is a tremendous opportunity in the Library to create career programs which bring people in at the lowest levels and promote them on up to the top. We don't have that situation now. It has been a matter of constant discussion over the years between the labor organizations and the Library. We speak of it in terms of career enhancement and various other times. What the Library generally offers is a smattering of career opportunities in special programs, some of them related to affirmative action, some of them related to professional development. What we would like to propose and what we hope that you will urge the Library to support, is a program like the one that Christine just mentioned, in which the Library recruits people at the lowest levels from the outside and promotes them on up into the higher levels. We think that would be efficient for the Library in terms of getting the work done, in terms of budgetary questions; people get on-the-job training. They will have a deep and broad historical knowledge of how the institution does its work and we think that they will have a higher morale as a result of having some place to progress into rather than being trapped under a glass ceiling. In addition to that, I would also like to urge you to urge the Library to move on a subject we discussed with them on a joint committee between labor and management, which is the implementation of an alternative discipline program. The Library has its fair share of problems with discipline. There is a lot of litigation that goes on in the Library between personnel and the employees that work there. You may be aware of that burden. What we are proposing and what we have studied with management is a program in which employees--the point of the program would be to keep employees productive and to have a remedial system as opposed to a system which punishes employees who commit fairly minor infractions. Of course, if somebody does something major, then that is another story. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Stern, let me interrupt just for one second. We have about a minute and a half left. There is a series of votes upstairs. I am not sure which vote is first. It is going to take us about a minute to get oriented as to what we are voting on. Maybe Mr. Serrano and I at least could come back after the vote and hear the rest of your testimony, Mr. Roth, and then we will be finished. Mr. Latham. That is fine. There are two 5-minute votes. Mr. Walsh. There are two 5-minute votes. Mr. Walsh. We will either be right back down or be down in 10 minutes. Mr. Serrano. Sorry about that. Mr. Walsh. They are term limit votes, I think, and they are for all the different States. [Recess.] Mr. Walsh. Before we get interrupted again, why don't we go back to Mr. Stern, who was in the middle of his testimony. Mr. Stern. Do you want me to reintroduce myself? Mr. Walsh. No. We got you. Mr. Serrano. We remember. Mr. Stern. If you don't mind, since we have a little bit more time, I will return to my prepared comments here. Mr. Walsh. Please do. Mr. Stern. I was bringing before you the matter of traditional discipline versus alternative discipline. A matter of concern to my constituents and to the Library administrators as well, is the negative effect of traditional disciplinary proceedings. Last year, Library administrators and Union representatives sat on a joint committee to discuss the concept of alternative discipline. The basic idea of alternative discipline is to utilize the disciplinary process which is remedial for the employee and which spares the agency the disruption of work routines. Alternative discipline is predicated on the assumption that the accused employee is guilty off and admits to the charged infraction. Rather than take measures that result in hardship both to the employer and to the employee's coworkers and family via suspension, demotion, et cetera, alternative discipline imposes penalties like community service and forfeiture or donation or leave. Now that it has been studied at the Library, I hope you will encourage the Library to take the next step and prepare a plan to implement an alternative discipline program. I would like to bring to your attention a situation that seems to be the very stuff of bureaucratic inefficiency. The employees who maintain the order of the Library's collections are known as Deck Attendants. Up until 2 years, the majority of the approximately 120 Deck Attendant jobs were temporary positions. The employees received no benefits and had no rights on-the-job, even though some of them had been in their positions for more than 10 years. In 1995, as the result of Union concern and the national attention on the situation of temporary workers, many of the Deck Attendants were converted to ``indefinite'' tenure, making them eligible for benefits and job protections, but they must now reapply for their jobs every 2 years. The reapplication process is not only a waste of agency resources and time, but has also resulted in several snafus such as the inadvertent selection of outside applicants over employees who have been performing the work for many years. Surely it would be better for all concerned if these employees who are entrusted with the care and security of the Library's collections were treated like other Library employees, instead of being required to reapply every 2 years. I ask that you consider remedying this wasteful situation by urging the Library to convert the Deck Attendants to permanent employees. The Library has requested funds to implement an Integrated Library System. Such a system would provide an integrated automation environment for many activities, including cataloging, inventory control and financial accounting. Our Union supports this initiative because without it the Library will be unable to keep up with the expanding demands from the Congress and from the Nation for information. It should also help clarify some of the murkiness surrounding collection, certain issues of collection, security and financial accountability, that were highlighted in last year's GAO report. We do, however, urge that automated systems be used not as a substitute for people but as an aid that extends the ability of the Library's employees to cope with the avalanche of information that characterizes the time we live in. Finally, I would like to mention the matter of contracting the Library's work out. I am gratified that the Library made the right decision this year in keeping the Photo Duplication Service in-house. However, there are still questionable decisions being made regarding contracting out. In the worst case that I am aware of so far, it was recently learned that some work for the National Digital Library has been farmed out to low-paid workers in Jamaica and the Philippines. On a related topic; I have also reported in my written statement to you on the fact that the Library's Gift Shop is offering wares with the Library's insignia that are manufactured in Hong Kong and Korea. I urge you to preserve and promote the quality of the product the Library delivers by keeping its work in-house, among staff who have dedicated their careers to the Library. I also urge you to protect American jobs by ensuring that the goods and services we offer are produced by American labor. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. You are welcome. [The information follows:] [Pages 756 - 766--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Now we will hear from Mr. Dennis Roth, Congressional Research Employees Association. Mr. Roth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Serrano. Thank you for coming back from the vote and be willing to hear us. I know you could have just cancelled, you know, adjourned the meeting and accepted only our written testimony. Mr. Serrano. It was a choice between listening to you and hearing a debate on term limits. It was an easy choice. Mr. Roth. Again, my name is Dennis Roth, and I am president of the union that represents the employees of the Congressional Research Service exclusively. We represent both the professional and nonprofessional positions in the Library, and this is a tribute to our belief that, you know, we serve the Congress as a team. In an environment that does not require membership in order to have union representation, our union has a membership of between 65 to 70 percent. This morning, I heard several of you make very positive comments about CRS. On behalf of the staff that I represent, I thank you very much. It is this, you know, working staff that I have been elected to be here today that has made such a favorable impression on you and your staff. I would like to just go over four key points in my oraltestimony that I presented in my written testimony. First, the Congressional Research Service is a vital organ in the body of the Congress and cannot be neglected. We all tend to take certain organs for granted in our own personal bodies until something goes wrong. We do not intentionally try to damage these organs, but once the damage is done, we find it irreversible. This is why you must give immediate attention and consideration to not only maintaining but sustaining the Congressional Research Service, not only for this coming fiscal year but also for the next decade. In order for us to be responsive to your needs in a timely fashion, we have gotten about as thin as we can get. Another hit and we will not be able to function effectively. And failure to see and address the long-run problem will result in total failure in a few years. Funding the succession planning initiative that was in the Director's testimony will ensure that the Congress will continue to have the best public policy research, analysis and reference organization available to any legislative body in the world. In this morning's questioning, Congressman Latham asked how we got to this point. While the Director pointed out the rapid growth that took place after the legislation in 1970, he neglected to point out that the normal cushion that would be in the organization evaporated because of the tight budgets that we started facing in the 1980s. We did not grow. In fact, we were moving in the opposite direction. So by losing maybe 200 to 300 slots, where you would normally have turnover and bring in new people and all of that, we didn't have that. So that was another effect that sort of kept us where we were. Furthermore, the whole Federal Government tightened up so there weren't any particular jobs where people could move to in the outside sector. And thirdly, CRS is a good place to work. Second, unionization under the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute has worked well in the Congressional Research Service and in the Library for nearly 2 decades, and there is no need to change the rules of the games now. Under the statute passed by the Congress in 1978, certain parameters were established for our performance: Effective conduct of public business; amicable settlement of disputes between employees and management involving conditions of employment; maintaining the highest levels of employee performance, and continued development and implementation of modern and progressive work practices to facilitate and improve employee performance and the efficient accomplishment of the operations of the government. CREA, which we call ourselves, has successfully stayed within these boundaries as evidenced in its success in problem- solving in dispute resolution through discussion and negotiation, rather than through the filing of grievances, unfair labor practices and other union actions. We have not been so successful, however, in bringing the management practices of the Library and the Congressional Research Service into those of the 1990s. Current management practices in the private sector give a lot more respect and responsibility to employees than is the case in the Library. However, a changing course appears to be on the horizon. As you heard in the testimony of Donald Scott this morning, our new deputy librarian, he is pursuing something called the facilitated leadership approach, and we hope that this will help make major changes in how we are managed in the Library. Now, I know the initiative is to start in March, and hopefully by summer we will start to see some changes. In addition, CREA would like for you to encourage the Library to adopt new approaches to collective bargaining that are more efficient, more effective and less time-consuming. This is basically called mutual interest, or sometimes called win/win bargaining, where you focus on what the real problems are, what do you really need in order to solve the problem. And once you know everybody's common base, you move forward, not unlike the Congress when it needs to sit down and pass legislation. You just need to get everybody's input into it, and then when you know what everybody needs, you build and construct the resolution. Third, we ask that you follow the findings of the Office of Compliance that was created as a result of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 regarding the labor management relations in the Library. The Compliance Board found that our existing coverage was comprehensive and effective and made no recommendations to change our coverage. Yet, we are concerned that the Library, and CRS in particular, will not accept this finding and continue to request a change. Their arguments for doing this, however, cannot be based on the Congressional Accountability Statute, and that should not be given any further consideration. Mr. Chairman, the unbiasedness of CRS products that you noted this morning is in no small part due to the protections afforded CRS analysts under our contract. And fourth, we look forward to working with our new deputy librarian Donald Scott in bringing the management of the Library into modern practices. We meet with Mr. Scott monthly. We are able to raise issues. Interestingly enough, one we just raised was the Metro subsidy that we like to also see in the Library, and maybe we should get Congressman Blumenauer to come over and talk to the Library. He did a very good job. So to be up front, Mr. Scott did say he would like to form a task force with us and look at the possibilities of implementing this in the Library. One other fact came out in some testimony we have heard this afternoon, and that was your question about the lighting fixtures and energy efficiency. You know, in the Library, this came to us, I guess, a couple of months ago, and the unions are very concerned, not about the energy efficiency aspect of this, but that the route taken by the Architect was the least expensive and perhaps the most harmful to employees. Because of new technology and computers, you need to have adjusted lighting in many cases. We have been informed that the new light fixtures and ballasts will not permit this. So you will not have lighting that is appropriate for today's technology. So if you hear somewhere along the line, you know, those damn unions in the Library are holding us up, this is the reason why. And I don't know if Saul Schniderman can add to this, but there has been a lot of investigation on this in 2910. You might want to say a couple of words about this. Mr. Schniderman. My name is Saul Schniderman, and I am the chief steward for AFSCME 2910. The relationship between the AOC and the Library is a tenant/landlord relationship. We are the tenants of the building, and the AOC is responsible for the maintenance of the building. And oftentimes, decisions are made without necessarily consulting Library management because, indeed, that is their role, to maintain the building. In this particular instance, as President Roth points out, we discovered there were a number of florescent light bulbs that were ready to be installed in the Library in February, and when we found out that they were not adjustable and may not meet the needs of the Library even with regards even to preservation, we brought it to the attention of our managers. But these problems can best be resolved through better communication between the Architect's office and the Library management and hopefully with us. Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Mr. Roth. That concludes my statement. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. [The information follows:] [Pages 770 - 779--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Well, thank you all very much for your testimony. I think I can safely say that we will all be concerned about your ability to perform your respective roles in the work environment that you are in. And we can follow up with the Architect on that issue for sure. We, obviously, want to conserve energy. I think you do, too. But we want to make sure that you have conditions in which you work that are safe and helpful to conduct your jobs. Just a couple of questions. I believe it was Mr. Stern who mentioned the deck attendants and the fact that they have to refile every 2 years. Mr. Stern. That is correct. Every third year. Mr. Walsh. Rather than get into the wisdom or lack of wisdom of that, you mentioned the inadvertent selection of outside individuals. What did you mean by that? Mr. Stern. What happened is that the Library is in the process of trying on a new selection system which includes an automated portion. They contract the rating of applicants to what is called the MARS system, an objective test a lot like filling in the boxes of the qualifications. There was some kind of snafu with that process when some of these employees came up to reapply for their jobs, and as a result applicants were chosen who had never been in the job and don't have the same kind of qualifications, and the people that had been doing the job for quite a long time were told they---- Mr. Walsh. This supposedly objective test determined that the individuals who had no experience would be better qualified for the job than the individuals who had had the job? Mr. Stern. It was a technical problem. Mr. Walsh. It wasn't an objective analysis of the test. Mr. Stern. Yes, and it has been remedied. The reason I bring it up is to point out if you have employees being recycled through the application process every third year, you are going to have problems like this more often. It is a burden on the agency, and it is also a burden on the psyches of the employees. Mr. Walsh. Sure. We get a 2-year contract every 2 years, and I get a little anxiety myself. Mr. Roth. We have 1-year contracts as presidents. Mr. Walsh. One year. That is tougher. You mentioned the photo duplication and the fact that that was not contracted out, and that was the right decision, in your words. Other than your obvious interest in your membership and keeping their job, why was that the right decision? Mr. Stern. First of all, there was a lot of expertise in the existing workforce. They have already been trained to do it. They do an excellent job of it. I think the kind of problems that were causing the Library to think they should be contracting out turned out not to be. They were counting strictly numbers of items that were being processed, and they were not thinking of it in a total customer service mode. Once they got into that mode and realized the value of their staff there and existing equipment and the fact that this is something they have known how to do for a long time, they realized that all they had to do was reorganizing, perhaps change management around a little bit at the top, and they actually would have a much more efficient operation, without having to go through testing out new contractors and taking the risks. The other thing is that they deal with invaluable materials in photo duplication. They are responsible for keeping documents and records of materials which can't be replaced. And so in doing that, they actually do photograph the original items. To contract that kind of service out would be taking a risk with the Library's collections. And so it is obviously beneficial to the Library to keep that in-house. Mr. Walsh. One hypothetical follow-on question: Would your union support, if it made qualitative or quantitative sense, any contracting out by the Library of Congress? Mr. Stern. Well, our duty is to look after the employees that we serve. Obviously, we believe in the Library as an institution, and we believe in its mission. But our primary focus as humanists--and this is aside from our role as employees at the Library--is to look out for the well-being of the employees and the maintenance of their source of livelihood. Mr. Walsh. So the answer is no? Mr. Stern. So the answer is no, I am afraid. Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much for your honesty. Mr. Roth, you mentioned the succession plan, and there was some discussion about that earlier, the idea of bringing people in to work side by side with these folks before they leave. And I think we would all agree that is probably the most expensive way to do it, but maybe it is the only way. Are there any--is there any--in your estimation, is there any better way to do it than the succession plan to retain that knowledge? Mr. Roth. Given where we are right now, I really don't see how. Since we have not hired new employees for a long time--I don't mean zero, but it has been maybe half a dozen over the last several years that we don't even have younger employees that we can train and transition into these jobs. There are a few, and we are trying to get our management to look at that, but there is not enough to deal with the big problem. We have sort of sat where we were without any new employees for such a long time that we have reached the point where we have got 5 years before a lot of people are going to be leaving. And I don't think it takes 5 years to train somebody. It may take 2 to 3 to bring them to be able to respond to the congressional needs. But the best way you are going to get that is through mentoring. And I think when you look at your cost effectiveness, is that it is going to be more effective for me as an analyst to train somebody who is coming up the ranks than it would be for that analyst to go out and try to learn everything I know by looking at all the resource materials that may be there. We can summarize into a matter of hours what somebody may take a matter of days, weeks, months trying to capture. Don't forget that cost saving at the end by bringing in and training people more efficiently and effectively than you would do if you just had people coming in. Mr. Walsh. Sure. Sure. Mr. Serrano? Mr. Serrano. You were right, we did say some very nice things about the institution before, and it dawns on me, as it should have before, that we were not saying those things just to the directors that were here, but we were actually saying them to the employees who give the service and make us look good and feel proud. So I do join the Chairman in saying that it is our interest that you do well and that you work in a good environment. And to that extent we continue to commit ourselves within the situation that we live in to try to find a way to keep working conditions the best possible and keep the growth of the new generation of employees that will do these jobs. I don't know, Mr. Stern, if you answered part of this question in the issue of contracting out, but you had said that some things the Library sold were made overseas? Mr. Stern. Right. Mr. Serrano. Such as? Mr. Stern. A couple of weeks ago a colleague of mine did a survey at the gift shop in the Madison Building. There were indeed items being marketed with the Library of Congress imprimatur on it that were not manufactured in the United States. We found mugs that were manufactured in Hong Kong. We found calendars. These are items that said, ``Copyright Library of Congress,'' or, ``Produced in connection with the Library of Congress.'' Calendars that were produced in Korea. There were a lot of small items, pencils, pens and things like that. They looked like the kind of thing that you could probably buy off the shelf. Mr. Serrano. When you commented that it would be best that those things were handled--I thought you were saying by employees of the Library, but---- Mr. Stern. I understand your confusion. I was really making two points. One point is that the work of the Library of Congress itself should be done by Library of Congress employees. You get better product. And the other thing is that in terms of what the U.S. Government is promoting as images of itself and souvenirs that you buy in the Library of Congress gift shop, those should be manufactured by American labor. They are two separate points, really, I am sorry. Mr. Serrano. No, no, it is okay. It just reminds me of our argument about flag-burning--most of the flags that people want to burn are made in Taiwan, and it is very confusing. I really, Mr. Chairman, don't have much in the way of questions at all. Actually, just let me reiterate to you, sir, the fact that I think we are looking at the representatives of some very vital Federal employees that we have to, in any way, shape, or form possible, try to support so that they can continue to give us the product that they do give us. Mr. Roth. I would just like to add one other point that came to mind in your discussion. That is the overall cost of this succession plan, is that because most of us have been here 18, 20, 25 years. The analyst position in CRS is a GS-5 to 15 ladder. If you are doing a good job, you get promoted to a GS- 15 pretty quickly in your career. It is an annual evaluation process. With this succession plan, you will be bringing in people with a 7, 9 level. You are going to have an 11 or 12 replacing a 15 at a step 10. You are going to have money savings also during this transition phase that looks big in the beginning, but it works its way through the process. Mr. Walsh. We have just been notified that we expect to have a vote in the full committee very soon so we will give Mr. Latham the opportunity to close. Mr. Latham. I just would like to associate myself with your remarks and express the appreciation and respect that I have for the work that you do over there. You do a tremendous job. And the quality of the organization is only as good as people that are doing it, and that is a very good reflection on you, I think. But that is all. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. A nice way to finish. Thank you all very, very much. Thursday, February 13, 1997. JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION WITNESSES HON. BILL ARCHER, CHAIRMAN, JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION KENNETH J. KIES, CHIEF OF STAFF, JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION BERNARD A. SCHMITT, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF-REVENUE ANALYSIS, JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION MARY M. SCHMITT, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF-LAW, JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION Mr. Walsh. The subcommittee will come to order. We have one remaining witness to wrap up our first round of hearings. We will now take up the Joint Committee on Taxation. We have Chairman Bill Archer this afternoon. Welcome, Mr. Chairman. The Vice Chairman for this session is Senator Bill Roth, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. We also have Mr. Kenneth Kies--is it? --the Joint Committee Chief of Staff. Welcome, Mr. Kies. The Joint Committee budget request is a little over $6.1 million. The current appropriation level is $5.5 million. Mr. Chairman, the Members have been given a copy of your budget request. If you would like, please proceed with your statement. Chairman Archer's Statement Mr. Archer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, again, for giving us a hearing as we come and make requests for what we believe is necessary to do a job that is very important for this country. The requests that we are making for the Joint Committee-- and as you aptly pointed out, I share the responsibility for this with Chairman Roth over in the Senate Finance Committee. We alternate years of chairmanship. I happen to be Chairman this year. He will be Chairman next year. And it is very important to understand that this unique entity, which is the Joint Committee on Taxation does serve both the Senate and the House, so its responsibilities are very, very different than other staffs that work for various committees. We are making requests that we believe today are necessary to finance their operations for the year 1998, so that they can do the job to serve us and to facilitate our ability to discharge our legislative responsibilities. They participate in the development of every single phase of tax policy for the House and the Senate, and ultimately provide an enormous resource in conference, where they can facilitate the coming together between the two bodies on an impartial basis. The kind of services that they give us are not duplicated anywhere else in the Congress, or the executive branch. It requires substantial resources to prepare revenue estimates, distributional effects of tax policy and other economic analyses that relate to legislation. In addition, they have got the very unusual function of overseeing the refund of tax liabilities determined by the IRS. In other words, if there is a refund that the IRS is going to make to a particular taxpayer, in excess of a million dollars, it has to be reviewed by the Joint Committee and it has to be certified by them. And they have actually, on a number of occasions, found that the IRS is wrong. I know nobody in this body would think that the IRS can make a mistake, but they have determined that some of the refunds were not appropriate. It is written into law that there be congressional oversight of these refunds and as long as that is a part of the law, they have got to discharge that responsibility. So as you pointed out, for the year 1998, we are requesting $6,126,000. And that is, compared to other committee requests, including my own Ways and Means Committee, a much higher percentage. It is an increase of $656,000 over and above 1997. But it is only $107,000 more than in fiscal year 1995, and we need to bear that in mind. I was able to cut the staff of the Ways and Means Committee on the Majority side by 40 percent when I took over the committee, because it had been ballooned up beyond anything that was necessary to do our job. But the Joint Committee had not had that happen to them over the years. And as a result, they weren't in a position really to take the cuts and still do their job. They not only have to give revenue estimates to Members of our committee and the Senate Finance Committee, but if you, Mr. Chairman, have a tax provision that you are interested in and you want to be able to determine whether or not you have got a chance to pass it, you have to send it over to them and ask for a revenue estimate. And they have then got to comply with these requests from all of the Members of the House of Representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, and they operate in a nonpartisan way. Now, in addition to those traditional roles, in the last Congress we asked the Joint Committee to assume additional responsibilities. We wrote into the law, when we passed line item veto legislation, that tax provisions could also be subject to the line item veto. And in doing so, we recognized that you couldn't open the door to broad-based tax changes and make them subject to line item veto, but if they were specially targeted to help one particular entity that the President should have the right to veto that. And the way the law was written if it affects 100 entities or less, it can be subject to the veto. We wrote into the law that the Joint Committee makes the final determination of whether a bill affects 100 entities or not. So they have to do the certification when the bill goes down to the President to determine what he can and cannot veto as a line item. And that is a new responsibility that they have. And they also have to determine where there are possible unfunded mandates, which is also a new legislative responsibility that we put on the Joint Committee. We are requesting that you authorize 73 full-time employees, which is an increase. It is an increase over whatis currently 61, but it would return the committee to its authorized level in 1995, and would be no increase whatsoever over 1995. Unless these full-time employees are increased to an acceptable level, I question whether the Joint Committee really are going to have the ability to comply with all of the legislative responsibilities that we put on them. And in addition, a good bit of the increase is going to be devoted to putting in place the ability to determine the macroeconomic effect of tax legislation. This is something that our leadership has been requesting for a long, long time. And that is going to require significant additional computer capability and significant additional personnel capability on the part of extremely bright and astute economists. It is not an easy task. And as they move into trying to prepare for that, we have got to understand that what we are looking for is accuracy, and when we get into this type of an exercise, it is going to require some significant additional resources. But there has been tremendous pressure by a large number of people, on our side of the aisle, of saying that the static analysis of the impact of tax proposals is really not accurate, and it isn't accurate. So thank you for listening to me. That is, believe it or not, a synopsis of my written statement, which I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the record. Mr. Walsh. Without objection. [The information follows:] [Pages 788 - 817--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] data processing requirements Mr. Walsh. It would seem that this committee has taken on added importance and an added workload with dynamic scoring and line item veto and so on. You have requested an increase from 61 to 73 positions. Does the funding increase also cover equipment, the computers that you are going to need? Mr. Archer. It will not cover all of them. It will cover the beginning of the upgrading of the computer capabilities. Mr. Walsh. What do you estimate that cost is going to be in the long run? Mr. Archer. Ken. This is Ken Kies, who is the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Mr. Kies. We have had a 2-year project under way to try to determine how we move to being in a position to provide macroeconomic analysis, and we are into that. But I don't think we feel confident yet to predict exactly what resources will be needed in the long-run. What we have tried to accommodate is what we think will be necessary in the next fiscal year. We are in the process right now of putting together a report which is a culmination of a year-long study which will indicate what we think the long-run resource needs will be. And we hope to have that out within the next couple of months, which would then be relevant for the next fiscal year's appropriation request. Mr. Walsh. Why couldn't you just use the Congressional Research Service to do this for you? Mr. Kies. They don't have that capability. Mr. Walsh. Or the CBO? Mr. Kies. They don't have it, either. Neither one of those two organizations do analysis of tax legislation; only the Joint Committee on Taxation does. The analysis by CBO is of spending legislation only. The CRS doesn't have estimating capability at all. Mr. Walsh. The macroeconomic effects, will you be analyzing the macroeconomic effects of tax legislation? Mr. Kies. That is correct. Mr. Walsh. Not spending? Mr. Kies. No. There is a divide between us and CBO. We do all the analysis of tax legislation. They do all the analysis of spending legislation. Mr. Walsh. Is there a terribly different methodology for those two? Mr. Kies. It is dramatically different expertise. I mean, the CBO are experts in the spending programs, which the Congress approves. They have very limited tax expertise. I believe they actually have only one lawyer at CBO and they don't have technical understanding of the tax provisions, so the only place that that exists on the Hill is with the Joint Committee on Taxation. Mr. Walsh. So when do you think you will have a picture of what your needs are in terms of new equipment? Mr. Kies. We plan to have a study completed within probably 2 to 3 months, that will set forth a long-term profile or project for being in a position to do macroeconomic analysis. What we have requested for the fiscal 1998 budget is what we think are the needs that we will have for the steps that we can take in the next fiscal year in that process. It will be a process that will take more than one year to complete. Mr. Walsh. Okay. Mr. Serrano. discussion on possible overlapping expertise Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being here. I am almost tempted to see, before I ask any questions, if we could reopen the 936 question. Mr. Archer. Well, we need to have more resources for estimating on that. Mr. Serrano. I might have stepped into that one. There is some part here that is confusing us. At the expense, Mr. Chairman Walsh, of sounding like a budget cutter, I am concerned about---- Mr. Walsh. Give it a try. Mr. Serrano. Right. It doesn't sit well right now. But I am concerned about the number of positions that you are asking for in terms of whether there is duplication or whether there is a need for people to be doing something one place that could be done another place. For instance, my understanding of the rule was that it was supposed to deal with major pieces of tax legislation. Now, how many major pieces of tax legislation do we expect to see? Or are we going to be scoring other legislative pieces, such as capital gains tax cuts, State taxes, business taxes? And is this one of the reasons why we need this new staff? And then secondly, also as part of that whole thing, I am really totally confused, sir, by your comment that CBO and CRS are not equipped to deal with this. My understanding is that CBO has 20 macroeconomists on staff. I thought a macroeconomist by any other name was still a macroeconomist. What could one tell us that another one could not tell us, simply because they are in another department or another agency? Mr. Kies. Well, Congressman, let me answer your second question, first. The macroeconomists that the CBO has on staff are not experts on tax policy or tax policy changes. That is not what they--that is not the nature of their responsibilities. And one macroeconomist is not the same as another macroeconomist. They do specialize. The ones that are at CBO specialize in things like health care policy, welfare policy, things of that nature, but not in tax policy changes. Mr. Serrano. Well, if I may, they specialize in that because that is what we have been dealing with. But they were trained, I am sure, in general principles about our economic system. The economy either grows or it doesn't grow, or what factors make it grow, what role taxes play in that growth or lack of growth, which is an ongoing debate in this country. You know, I can understand saying we need our own team. I may agree or disagree, but I can understand that position. But to say we can't have those guys do it because they do something differently, well, most Members of Congress may not be as well versed as you are in the issues, to the point that you actually believe that there are macroeconomists who think different than others or who were not trained the same way or not capable of doing the same work. So I think that that needs a more direct understanding for the membership as to why they are different and why you would need these additional ones over there. One last thing: that right away gives the feeling, if not the suspicion, that one wants a certain outcome, rather than the information that may be available for all of us, wherever we get it from. Mr. Kies. Well, I think that if--you will find that if you consult with June O'Neill, who is the head of the Congressional Budget Office, that she will confirm the advice that I am giving you, that their people are not trained or have the expertise to do this type of analysis. The Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimating is not done to achieve any particular result; it is done to try and identify what is the correct revenue effect of proposed tax legislation. What we are attempting to do here is to improve that capability, and that does require people who have particular expertise with respect to tax policy. And it is our best judgment that it is the most efficient way for the Congress to proceed to have this capability. Mr. Serrano. All right. I just may say in closing on that point, that--obviously, you are not a Member of Congress--but that runs counter to what we have been hearing in the last 2 or so years, which is that we should reduce staff and have people learn to do other things and retrain them, as we must. So that kind of runs counter, that we have people somewhere else that could do this job but we would rather have new people or our own in one certain department doing it the way we want them to do it, and I am not going to argue that point anymore. But how about my first concern, about whether you are going to single in on certain major pieces of legislation, or are you going to analyze everything that comes before us? dynamic scoring of proposed tax legislation Mr. Kies. Congressman, the rule that has been passed in the House for this Congress is a first step in this process. It is intended to be an experimental step so that the rule only provides for macroeconomic analysis of certain major restructuring proposals. Right now we don't even feel like we are in a position to comply with that rule; we need to improve our capability to be able to comply with this rule that is a very tentative step in this direction. So we don't plan--we don't expect that we will be doing macroeconomic analysis on a multitude of legislative proposals. Indeed, our early indication is that it is probably only relevant on major tax restructuring proposals. We are trying to anticipate what we have heard from various Members of Congress in terms of a desire to have a more significant capability in this area. The rule, I think is a first step in that direction. Mr. Serrano. So then it would be correct for some people to believe that even if it just deals with the application of major tax bills, that your request would still be that you need these folks to carry out this work? Mr. Kies. That is correct. joint committee's symposium on dynamic scoring Mr. Serrano. I have one last question, which probably should have been the first question. I understand that the Joint Committee staff sponsored a symposium in January where they had macroeconomists come in, and that the result of that symposium was that people felt that this area, this way of doing business, was not ready yet; the jury was still out on whether this was the right way to do it. Now, again, we are a new crowd here that now believes that we should listen to what the private sector is telling us, and in a way that is the private sector in this field. Should we be taking off on this until they agree that this is the way to go? Mr. Kies. Congressman, let me tell you what the symposium did conclude. It was not inconsistent with what was the general thrust of testimony provided by Allen Greenspan, and a wide variety of economists in January of 1995, on this issue. And essentially, what all economists will say is that if one could take the macroeconomic effects of major tax changes into account in completing a revenue estimate, it would make the estimate more accurate. It would give the Congress a better indication of the revenue effects of that proposed legislation. What the symposium concluded is that while there has been a lot of work done in this area, and much of it was done as a consequence of the year-long project that we undertook by inviting outside modelers to participate, we are perhaps not ready for prime time, if you will; that the state of the art still needs to be improved upon. And that is one of the reasons that we requested the resources we have today, so that we can try and push the state of the art in terms of achieving a better ability to do this type of analysis. I think all economists would agree that if we could do it in a reliable manner, it would improve the quality of our revenue estimating, and that in the final analysis is what our objective is. Mr. Serrano. Okay. amount of increase for macroeconomic analaysis Mr. Archer. Jim, I don't want to prolong this, but if I could be given your indulgence to say a couple of things. Mr. Walsh. Certainly. Mr. Archer. If I were in your position, I would ask exactly the same questions you did. I think they are appropriate and should be asked and should continue to be asked on a bipartisan basis, in your committee. And I don't think that they are subject to a 2-plus-2 equals 4 answer, but we have got to continue to work to get the job done and to do it in the most efficient way, with the least amount of resources. I believe that we are better served on the tax side, which is a field unto itself, and I hope I am removing myself from provinciality in this, than we could ever be served by CBO, as a body. I am not just talking about myself as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, but we as a body, a legislative body, Democrats and Republicans, the Joint Committee tries very, very hard, and I think succeeds, in being nonpartisan. I know that Ken and his staff do a tremendous amount of work for the Minority side and they never disclose to us the work they are doing for the Minority. And I hope they don't disclose to the Minority what they are doing for us. But I can tell you, they do not in any way violate that confidence. And that is very, very important. I think it is also important to add to what Ken said to you, that the amount of the increase that is requested that relates to the macroeconomic effort, and this is just the beginning to try to get there, is a relatively small part of the request for increase. How much would you guess is involved in the macroeconomic part of it? Mr. Kies. Well, of the $656,000 increase we have asked for, $154,000 is the cost-of-living number that is given to us by the Finance Office, that relates to our overall operations. So it doesn't relate to this. $120,000 is for merit increases; $375,000 is for new hires. Of the new hires, probably approximately $200,000 of that is going to be devoted in this next fiscal year to the macroeconomic piece. It would essentially involve the hiring of two to three economists who have expertise in the macroeconomic area. So that is essentially the component that is devoted to our efforts on the macroeconomic aspects of this. Mr. Archer. Let me also just refer back, if I may, for a moment, to my original comments. This will get the staff number back up to where it was in 1995. It is not an increase over 1995. It was an increase over what was provided for this year. As the Tax Code becomes more complex, and it does every year--I want to change that. I want to virtually put the Joint Committee out of business ultimately and abolish the income tax and all of the complexities that we have to deal with. And I think one day we will get that done, but that is another issue, not to spend time with here today. But every time the IRS issues a regulation, which they are doing over and over again, week after week, month after month, this Code becomes more complex. And as it becomes more complex, Members have more areas that they are interested in and that they are trying to change, and they are sending them over for revenue estimates. And before we can have a chance to evaluate any of that, we have got to get an accurate revenue estimate. So just the demands of the system as it grows are putting an enormous strain on the Joint Committee. And what has to happen is if they don't get adequate resources, it means that Members just aren't going to be able to get their revenue estimates, because you run out of computer capability, you run out of personnel capability and--so I just want you to understand, really, what is the guts of all of this. And, again, coupled with the fact that they do have this new responsibility on the line item veto and on unfunded mandates. Thank you for listening very patiently, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. I just wanted to clarify that. My questions were based on a general uneasiness on my side. As we branch out into different ventures and different ways of doing business in the House, we should use all available resources. In no way should those questions be seen as diminishing this side's respect or admiration for the staff or for the Chairman. Mr. Walsh. Understood. Thank you. Mr. Cunningham. discussion on importance of joint committee on taxation Mr. Cunningham. First of all, I would say to my colleague that I agree with Bill Archer, that if circumstances were different I would have concerns also on the budget request I understand that. I also look at the direction that I come from. Maybe it is different in your district; that may be a difference. But people tell me, not only just many in my district, but as I travel across the country, that they feel the current tax system is obtrusive. It is unfair. The gentleman would agree with that, that it is burdensome. It prevents job creation in one economy versus the other. We need to look into making it better in all of those cases. When we spend $4 billion on a computer system, or the current system, and IRS themselves said they can't use the computers now because the system is so complex and the computer can't recognize it, something has to be changed. So I think we have a moral and an economic responsibility not just to do press releases, not just to do the poll- gathering events of a new issue, but to really dig into areas in which we can help the American people. It would be good for a housewife that has a child, that is single, to allow her to be able to do her taxes without having to hire 10 people to do her taxes. When we talk about the people that are less fortunate, to make the tax system fairer,and I think in that direction on a bipartisan basis, that this is an absolute thing that we need to do. Instead of putting another $4 billion into an IRS system, we ought to invest in this project to come out with a better system. That is the way I view it. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. space for additional staff Mr. Walsh. Thank you. I can't think of anyone I would have more faith in than Chairman Archer to take a real serious look at existing tax law and do what is right for the country. It is a huge challenge. I am not going to get into it. It is far too complicated for me to even discuss with you. But I have full faith that you will do it justice. Back from the macro down to the micro, I just have one last question, very practical question, and that is: If you are able to put on these 12 additional people, do you have physical space for them? Do you have room for them? Mr. Kies. Congressman, we do have a little bit of a space problem. We recently wrote to--actually, Chairman Archer recently wrote to Speaker Gingrich about some space that seems to be not utilized over in Annex 1, and inquired as to whether it might be available to us if it is not going to be put to any other use. So that is one concern. We do have some space on the Senate side as well that we could utilize. Mr. Walsh. Staff advised me that there is space in Annexes 1 or 2. It is available. Mr. Kies. It would be helpful--we have a request in from Chairman Archer with respect to space that is adjacent to our space, that seems to not be utilized. And to the extent we could get access to it, it would be very helpful. Closing Remarks Mr. Walsh. We have just been joined by Congressman Latham. Tom, do you have any questions or comments you would like to make? Mr. Latham. No. I apologize for being late. Mr. Walsh. All right. Thank you. Mr. Archer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much. We might have to enter some questions into the record. Does he want to enter those? Then we are finished. Do you want to enter those for the record? Mr. Latham. Sure. Mr. Walsh. Congressman Latham has some questions, that he began yesterday with the Office of Compliance, and we will enter those into the record of that agency. Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. With that, the hearing is adjourned. Our first round of hearings are adjourned. Thank you all very much for your attentiveness. W I T N E S S E S __________ Page Abrecht, G. L.................................................... 197 Archer, Hon. Bill................................................ 785 Becker, H. S..................................................... 431 Billington, J. H................................................. 431 Blum, J. L....................................................... 235 Blumenauer, Hon. Earl............................................ 691 Brown, R. L...................................................... 335 Carle, R. H...................................................... 9 Casey, G. S...................................................... 197 Cook, C. C....................................................... 383 Cylke, F. K...................................................... 431 Del Balzo, Gail.................................................. 235 Delquadro, D. M.................................................. 235 Dennis, David.................................................... 9 Desautels, M. G.................................................. 235 DiMario, M. F.................................................... 383 Dodaro, J. M..................................................... 335 Duffy, Dennis.................................................... 287 Eisold, Dr. J. F................................................. 9 Frenze, Christopher.............................................. 423 Frey, Bob........................................................ 9 Greigg, S. L..................................................... 235 Guy, W. M........................................................ 383 Hack, Elizabeth.................................................. 287 Hantman, A. M..................................................197, 599 Hinchman, J. F................................................... 335 Hodges, P. E..................................................... 235 Hughes-Brown, Beth............................................... 287 Jenkins, J. C.................................................... 431 Kelley, W. P..................................................... 383 Kies, K. J....................................................... 785 Lainhart, J. W., IV.............................................. 9 Livingood, W. S..................................................9, 197 Meade, D. E...................................................... 9 Medina, Rubens................................................... 431 Miley, Robert.................................................... 599 Miller, J. R..................................................... 9 Miller, K. J..................................................... 9 Miranda, Roberto................................................. 599 Mulhollan, D. P.................................................. 431 O'Neill, J. E.................................................... 235 Oakley, R. L..................................................... 699 Patch, B. J...................................................... 9 Pauls, L. A...................................................... 431 Peach, J. D...................................................... 335 Peters, Marybeth................................................. 431 Peterson, E. C................................................... 321 Pregnall, Stuart................................................. 599 Roth, D. M....................................................... 744 Saxton, Hon. James............................................... 423 Schmitt, B. A.................................................... 785 Schmitt, M. M.................................................... 785 Schollenberger, Christine........................................ 744 Scott, Gen. D. L................................................. 431 Seitz, Virginia.................................................. 287 Silberman, Ricky................................................. 287 Stephens, James.................................................. 287 Stern, Joel...................................................... 744 Tabb, Winston.................................................... 431 Talkin, Pam...................................................... 287 Trandahl, Jeff................................................... 9 Turner, C. L., III............................................... 431 Warner, Hon. J. W................................................ 321 Washington, L. J................................................. 431 Webster, J. D.................................................... 431 Wimberly, Ben.................................................... 599 Zimmerman, D. F.................................................. 235 I N D E X ---------- Page Architect of the Capitol......................................... 599 ADA and OSHA................................................. 644 Bartholdi Fountain........................................... 657 Botanic Garden............................................... 652 Botanic Garden Conservatory.................................. 647 Capital Budget............................................... 636 Capital Projects............................................. 642 Capitol Buildings............................................ 640 Capitol Power Plant.......................................... 638 Davis-Bacon.................................................. 644 Energy Conservation Lighting................................. 657 Energy Consumption........................................... 638 House Office Buildings....................................... 641 Library Buildings and Grounds................................ 641 Opening Remarks.............................................. 599 Opening Statement............................................ 601 Overall Increase............................................. 637 Privatization................................................ 637 Reprogrammings............................................... 659 Sale of the Capitol.......................................... 640 Staffing Levels.............................................. 637 State of the Capitol......................................... 642 Congressional Budget Office...................................... 235 Analysis of the President's Budget........................... 281 CBO's Budget Request......................................... 237 CBO's Mandate................................................ 273 CBO's Mission................................................ 235 CBO and OMB Baselines........................................ 281 Changes in Savings........................................... 273 The Cost of Inaction......................................... 273 Costs of New Duties.......................................... 237 Defining a Mandate........................................... 275 ``Dynamic'' Estimates........................................ 272 Legislative Information System............................... 282 Line Item Veto Effects....................................... 237 A Major New Effort........................................... 236 New Responsibilities......................................... 236 Projected Legislative Bill Contributions to a Balanced Budget 282 Purchase of Equipment........................................ 279 Reprogrammings............................................... 285 State and Local Information.................................. 279 A Two-Sided Push............................................. 272 General Accounting Office........................................ 335 Airline Deregulation Work.................................... 364 Closing Remarks.............................................. 382 Contracting Out.............................................. 360 Information Gathering........................................ 362 Key Features of Request...................................... 336 Opening Remarks.............................................. 335 Use of Videoconferencing..................................... 362 Government Printing Office....................................... 409 By-law Distribution.......................................... 413 Congressional Printing....................................... 409 Congressional Printing Cost Increase Requested............... 409 Document Management.......................................... 416 Document Management, continued............................... 419 Electronic Access............................................ 418 FTE Limitation............................................... 414 Introduction of Witnesses.................................... 383 Legislative-Branch Wide Information Systems.................. 414 Prepared Statement........................................... 384 Joint Committee on Printing...................................... 321 Executive Branch Printing.................................... 324 Opening Remarks.............................................. 321 Printing House Documents..................................... 325 Statement of Chairman John Warner............................ 322 Statement of Sen. Wendell Ford............................... 326 Statement of Rep. Steny Hoyer................................ 327 Title 44 Revision............................................ 324 Joint Committee on Taxation...................................... 785 Amount of Increase for Macroeconomic Analysis................ 821 Chairman Archer's Statement.................................. 785 Closing Remarks.............................................. 824 Data Processing Requirements................................. 818 Discussion on Importance of Joint Committee on Taxation...... 823 Discussion on Possible Overlapping Expertise................. 819 Dynamic Scoring of Proposed Tax Legislation.................. 820 Joint Committee's Symposium on Dynamic Scoring............... 821 Space for Additional Staff................................... 823 Joint Economic Committee......................................... 423 Biography of Christopher Frenze.............................. 423 Committee Structure and Role................................. 427 Opening Statement of Chairman Jim Saxton..................... 423 Library of Congress.............................................. 431 Appropriations............................................... 482 Books on Tape................................................ 528 Budget Request............................................... 431 Cataloging Arrearage.......................................482, 563 Cataloging Progress.......................................... 566 Congressional Research Service............................... 543 Copyright Office--CORDS...................................... 577 CRS Graduate Recruit Program................................. 544 CRS Institutional Memory..................................... 544 CRS Products................................................. 559 CRS Staff Expertise.......................................... 545 Deputy Librarian's Statement................................. 475 Effects of Reduced Budget.................................... 565 Electronic Data Accessibility................................ 562 Electronic Services.......................................... 432 Global Legal Information Network............................. 567 Goal for 21st Century........................................ 433 Growing Workload............................................. 526 ILS Relation to Cataloging................................... 564 Information from U.S. Territories............................ 541 Inner-City Outreach.......................................... 541 Integrated Library System..................................476, 483 ``Internal University''...................................... 526 Legislative On-line Systems Coordination..................... 557 Librarian's Statement........................................ 432 Library Acquisitions......................................... 527 Library Bicentennial......................................... 433 Library Networking........................................... 538 Library Priorities........................................... 564 Management Improvement Plan.................................. 476 Mandatory Increases.......................................... 525 Mandatory Wage and Price Increases........................... 481 Mandatory Pay................................................ 482 Members' Opening Remarks..................................... 525 National Library Service for Blind and Physically Handicapped 527 On-line Information.......................................... 538 Opening Remarks.............................................. 431 Potential Cost Savings....................................... 566 Prepared Statement (Director CRS)............................ 547 Prepared Statement (Librarian of Congress)................... 434 Prepared Statement (Register of Copyrights).................. 570 Reader Registration Stations................................. 525 Reprogramming Requests....................................... 588 Security..................................................... 577 Succession Planning.......................................... 542 Systems Compatibility........................................ 561 Tabular Material............................................. 578 Talking Books for Blind and Physically Handicapped........... 481 Turnover Rate................................................ 543 Uncataloged Materials........................................ 563 Office of Compliance............................................. 287 Board of Directors........................................... 306 Budget Request............................................... 287 Closing Remarks.............................................. 319 Disability Access............................................ 316 Dispute Resolution Process................................... 306 Ms. Silberman's Statement.................................... 291 OSHA Concerns................................................ 315 Review of Capitol Complex Buildings.......................... 310 Safety and Health Reports.................................... 311 Statement of the Chairman of the Board....................... 287 U.S. Capitol Police.............................................. 197 Budget Request............................................... 197 Remarks from Chief Abrecht............................... 207 Remarks from Mr. Casey................................... 197 Remarks from Mr. Hantman................................. 207 Remarks from Mr. Livingood............................... 203 Chairman's Opening Remarks................................... 197 Computer and Telecommunications Services..................... 215 Coordination with Intelligence Agencies...................... 221 History of Two Payrolls...................................... 220 Management Review............................................ 218 New Positions................................................ 217 Officer Training............................................. 222 Pay Parity Initiatives....................................... 213 Recordkeeping................................................ 216 Reprogrammings............................................... 226 Staffing to Process Payroll.................................. 222 Transfer of Police Payroll Function to the National Finance Center..................................................... 217 Unified Payroll Requires Legislation......................... 223 U.S. House of Representatives.................................... 9 Allowances and Expenses...................................... 167 Attending Physician, Office of............................... 133 Care for General Public.................................. 135 Emergency Service........................................ 135 House Drinking Water Safety Concerns..................... 134 Other Health Concerns.................................... 134 Chairman Walsh's Opening Statement........................... 1 Budget Evaluation........................................ 4 Closing Remarks.......................................... 179 House Budget and FTEs.................................... 12 Introduction of New Subcommittee Member.................. 131 Jurisdiction of the Subcommittee......................... 2 Members' Information Materials........................... 3 Subcommittee's Role...................................... 3 Chaplain, Office of the...................................... 136 Clerk, Office of the......................................... 38 Document Management System............................... 38 Enhancement to Voting System............................. 40 Legislative Information Retrieval System................. 60 Legislative Resource Center.............................. 39 Questions on the Proposed Document Management System..... 58 Committee on Appropriations.................................. 33 House Leadership Offices..................................... 13 Inspector General, Office of................................. 112 104th Congress Audit Accomplishments..................... 113 Audit Concerns with Financial Management System.......... 125 Common Legislative Branch Financial Management System.... 126 Computer Security........................................ 129 Delays in Implementation................................. 124 Discussion on Finance Staffing........................... 125 Donation of Computers.................................... 130 Further Comments on Donation of Computers................ 132 Goals of the 1997 Audit Plan............................. 113 House Staff Benefits..................................... 131 Implementation of Financial Management System............ 124 Inspector General Reports................................ 124 Inspector General Staffing............................... 129 Inspector General's Assessment of Financial Management System................................................. 124 Inspector General's Audit Activities..................... 127 Inspector General's Concurrence with Finance Staffing.... 128 Internet and Financial Management Security............... 129 Preliminary Recommendations on FFS Staffing.............. 128 Probable Solution to Audit Concerns...................... 125 Law Revision Counsel, Office of the.......................... 141 Additional FTEs.......................................... 141 Intranet Access of U.S. Code............................. 145 Possible Reduction in U.S. Code Printing Costs........... 145 Legislative Counsel, Office of............................... 148 Members' Representational Allowances......................... 27 Mr. Latham's Statement....................................... 5 Mr. Serrano's Statement...................................... 4 Comments on Hiring Practices............................. 132 Credit to Previous Subcommittee Chairman................. 5 Chief Administrative Officer's Budget Request................ 74 Additional Voucher Delays Possible....................... 94 Additional Video Conferencing............................ 98 CAO FY 1998 Budget Submission............................ 74 CAO Personnel Increases.................................. 75 Child Care Center........................................ 109 Discussion on CAO ``Capital'' Budget..................... 110 Federal Financial System (FFS)........................... 94 Finance FTE Issues....................................... 109 Finance Office Staffing.................................. 100 Fiscal Year 1998 Estimates............................... 10 Food Service Contract.................................... 110 Improvement in Implementing FFS.......................... 92 Mr. Trandahl's Opening Statement......................... 9 New Digital Telephones................................... 96 Organizational Components................................ 74 Other Staff Increases.................................... 100 Overtime Cost............................................ 111 Overtime within the CAO's Budget......................... 112 Procurement Delays....................................... 102 Random Drug Testing...................................... 110 Sale of 501 First Street, SE, Building................... 110 Staffing Procedures...................................... 102 Telecommunication Budget................................. 96 Unexpended Balances...................................... 98 Vendor Payment Concerns.................................. 92 Vendor Payment Concerns, continued....................... 99 Video Conferencing....................................... 97 Year 2000 Readiness...................................... 103 Year 2000 Readiness, Members' Concern.................... 105 Parliamentarian, Office of the............................... 138 Salaries, Officers and Employees............................. 35 Sergeant at Arms, Office of the.............................. 67 Acknowledgment of Subcommittee........................... 73 Questions for the Sergeant at Arms....................... 73 Study of the Capitol..................................... 69 Standing Committees, Special & Select........................ 30