Segment 1 Of 2 Next Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS Tables
Page 1 TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 1998.
Mr. WALSH. We will now commence our hearings on the 1999 budget for various legislative branch agencies under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations.
Before we begin, I would like to welcome the Members of the subcommittee. We have the same membership as we had in the first session of the 105th Congress with one exception.
The Members are, in addition to myself, for the Majority: Bill Young of Florida; Duke Cunningham of California, who has been designated Vice Chairman; Zach Wamp of Tennessee; and Tom Latham of Iowa.
And Tom is here with us this morning. Thank you, Tom, for coming.
For the Minority: Congressman José Serrano of New York is the Ranking Minority Member.
Welcome back. Good to see you.
Vic Fazio of California.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And also the change is Steny Hoyer of Maryland will be replacing Marcy Kaptur of Ohio. We will miss Marcy, and we welcome Steny.
We have the Chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, Bob Livingston of Louisiana; and Dave Obey, Ranking Minority Member of the full committee from Wisconsin. They are also Members of the subcommittee.
The subcommittee jurisdiction—I will insert in the record at this point 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 Capitol (Except Senate Items).
Botanic Garden.
Congressional Budget Office.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
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. We should remind everyone that 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 Commerce, Justice, State. Likewise, the Helsinki Commission, the Prospective Payment Commission and several other agencies are not within our bill.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The President's budget has not yet been delivered to Congress. 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 Monday of next week.
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 1999, 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. This has been the customary practice over the years, and both Majority and Minority have concurred.
The staff has compiled the customary budget material for use of the Members of the subcommittee.
The draft Subcommittee Print has been provided to the Members as a working document. That is this. Right?
Mr. LOMBARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. WALSH. It contains the bill language and funding requests that will be included in the President's budget documents, primarily in 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 print also contains a great deal of historical information that the Members may find useful.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Part 1 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Hearings for 1999 has also been distributed to the Members. It is this book here. It contains the budget justifications that the agencies have prepared in explanation of their budget requests.
Part 1 will be made available as a public document when the hearings are completed.
The budget we are going to consider in this subcommittee totals $1.9 billion. That is up—and, again, this is the request. That is up 11 percent over last year. That figure does not include the operating budget of the Senate. That budget will be taken up—the Senate budget will be taken up by our counterpart subcommittee in the other body.
Let me be clear, the budget request for the legislative branch without the Senate is up 11 percent.
The budget for congressional operations is $1.2 billion. That encompasses the operating budget of the House, the Joint Committees and various support agencies, such as Capitol Police, the Architect, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Compliance, the Congressional Research Service and Congressional Printing.
The balance of the funds, $718 million, is for the other agencies in the legislative branch, including Library of Congress, Superintendent of Documents, the Federal Depository Program, General Accounting Office, Botanic Garden and the care of the Library grounds by the Architect.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I want to stress that these budgets have already been submitted separately and independently to the Office of Management and Budget by each of the legislative branch agencies. By law, OMB will include these budget requests in the President's budget without change.
Since OMB cannot, by law, 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 with executive agency budgets. That is a function OMB performs before the executive appropriation requests are presented to the Congress. That is a policy scrub. Our agency heads more or less apply their own policy judgments to these budgets as they are being prepared. Our committee is the first and only stop along the way which looks at the entire legislative branch budget in its totality for the broader budgetary implications for this part of government.
In addition, when the—and you may have been familiar with the term 602(B) allocations, they are now referred to as 302(B) allocations, which I am told is what they used to be called. So what goes around, comes around. Henceforward, 602(B) allocations shall be known as 302(B) allocations.
When they are made by the Full Committee, we will mark up the legislative branch appropriations bill to conform with Congress' overall budget targets. That is the more traditional appropriations process.
As we proceed through this 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, especially considering the requests are up 11 percent.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
So the $1.9 billion request will undergo careful scrutiny. Undoubtedly, it will be adjusted downward. We will evaluate the requests and the answers we get as we proceed with our hearings. I am certain we will find areas where we will not be able to fund all that is needed or justified.
The committee intends to be fair as well as fiscally responsible. We also expect our constituent agencies to be aware of the importance of bringing the Federal budget into balance.
My intention is to insure that the legislative branch contributes its fair share to that objective.
That is the end of my opening statement, and I would welcome any other opening statements from other Members, and I will begin with Congressman Serrano.
Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to, first of all, tell you I look forward to working with you this year.
As you know, last year you and I made a very serious attempt at having no stumbling blocks before this bill; but, unfortunately, as many people and the press know, our bill became involved in much larger issues on the House floor and, for a while, confused a lot of people who thought there was a problem with the bill when, in fact, our disagreements were maybe 5 percent based on the bill and 95 percent based on something else.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Hopefully, this year that issue won't be an issue; and, if it is, I will try to direct it towards another bill and not this one.
Mr. WALSH. Very much appreciate that.
Mr. SERRANO. I want to tell you that I look forward to working with you this year. You and I take this work very seriously. I know that there is always kidding around in our full Committee about who wants to serve on this committee, because the only fact-finding trip you can take is to the Library of Congress.
Mr. WALSH. Which is loaded with facts, by the way.
Mr. SERRANO. Exactly, which confuses a lot of people.
But our work is very important, especially these days when so many people outside this institution are taking very serious looks at how we do our work and how our agencies do their work and how the Congress in general functions. We take this work very seriously.
I know that our schedule is quick and tight this year as we try to finish with our hearings and move on with the bill, and I look forward to a very good and productive session.
Mr. WALSH. Thank you very much.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Latham, any opening comments?
Mr. LATHAM. It is an honor to be here with you, sir.
Mr. WALSH. It is great to have you back.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 1998.
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WITNESSES
HON. JAY EAGEN, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
FRANK DERVILLE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF FINANCE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
HON. ROBIN H. CARLE, CLERK, OFFICE OF THE CLERK
JEFF TRANDAHL, DEPUTY CLERK, OFFICE OF THE CLERK
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
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
GERALDINE R. GENNET, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
JOHN R. MILLER, LAW REVISION COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE LAW REVISION COUNSEL
M. POPE BARROW, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
DR. JOHN F. EISOLD, ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, OFFICE OF THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN
Mr. WALSH. We will now take up the budget request for the House of Representatives and several joint items.
The Chief Administrative Officer, assisted by the Office of Finance, submits the House budget each year to the Office of Management and Budget. The material is then included in the President's budget. The budget this year has already been submitted to OMB and is incorporated in the budget documents that present the entire Federal budget for 1999.
The House budget request totals $765.6 million. That includes funds for the operations of Member offices, committees, the leadership and the administrative operations of the House.
The total joint items budget is $97.7 million. The joint items, such as the joint committees and Capitol Police, are shared with the Senate. The fiscal year 1999 budget for the Senate operations will be considered by the other body.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We want to welcome the officers of the House who are with us here today. Is Robin Carle here this morning?
Welcome, Robin.
Ms. CARLE. Good morning.
Mr. WALSH. The Honorable Wilson Livingood, Sergeant at Arms, is also here. Welcome, Bill.
And the Honorable Jay Eagen, Chief Administrative Officer. Welcome, Jay.
We also have John Lainhart, the Inspector General; Ms. Geraldine Gennet, is it?
Ms. GENNET. Yes.
Mr. WALSH. Gennet?
Ms. GENNET. Yes.
Mr. WALSH. Thank you. Welcome. The House Counsel.
John Miller, Law Revision Counsel; and Pope Barrow, is that correct?
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. BARROW. Yes, right here.
Mr. WALSH. Legislative Counsel.
We also expect Dr. Eisold, the Attending Physician, to join us later.
Mr. Eagen is the Chief Financial Officer for the House and will be presenting the fiscal year 1999 budget to the committee. Jay is the de facto budget officer and is capably assisted in that area by the House Finance Office's, Mr. Frank Derville, who is the head of that office; and we are pleased to have him here also. We welcome both of you to the witness table.
Jay and Frank are new to the hearings. Both of you were appointed to these jobs last year, although you are not unfamiliar with our operations prior to that, well after our appropriations hearings had begun. We have been working with you and Frank for the past several months, and it is apparent that each of you was an excellent choice for these important assignments.
As is customary for first time witnesses, we will ask that your biographical sketches be inserted in the record at this point.
[The information follows:]
JAY EAGEN, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Jay Eagen was sworn in by Speaker Newt Gingrich as the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the United States House of Representatives on July 31, 1997 after approval of his nomination by the House. He was selected through a competitive process via a nation-wide search undertaken by the international personnel firm, Korn/Ferry International. A bipartisan search committee comprised of Rep. Bill Thomas (R–Calif.), Rep. Vic Fazio (D–Calif.), Rep. Bob Ney (R–Ohio) and Rep. James Clyburn (D–S.C.) then unanimously selected Mr. Eagen.
Prior to his present position, Jay has had an extensive career of public service on Capitol Hill lasting fifteen years. For six years, Mr. Eagen served as Staff Director for the Republican staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce (formerly Committee on Education and Labor) under Chairman Bill Goodling of Pennsylvania. From 1985 to 1991 he directed the personal office for Rep. Goodling as his chief of staff. Jay began his career in the House of Representatives as a Legislative Assistant in 1982 and a year later was appointed administrative assistant/chief of staff to Rep. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin.
Mr. Eagen is a native of Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania. He graduated with a history degree from Gettysburg College in 1979. He continued his education immediately at American University's School of International Service, receiving a masters degree with distinction, specializing in U.S. foreign policy and Western European relations. Jay also attended the Senior Managers in Government executive program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.
The Chief Administrative Officer, one of three officers elected by the House, oversees the broad administrative operations of the House including finances, technology/communications, human resources, equipment, supplies and procurement. The CAO is supported by a team of Associate Administrators who direct the individual unit operations.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Jay is married to Catherine Rauth Eagen, a native of Michigan. Cathy is a public school teacher at the Thomas Jefferson School for Science and Technology, part of the Fairfax County School System in Virginia. They reside in Alexandria, Virginia.
FRANK D. DERVILLE, CPA, CGFM
Frank Derville is currently the Associate Administrator for Finance at the House of Representatives. Prior to this, he was a Principal with Derville & Associates, a careerist whose public service included the U.S. General Accounting Office, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Health Care Financing Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs. He also served as a corporate controller in the private sector for several large corporations.
Frank has advised domestic and foreign clients on strategic planning and business plan development; strategic assessments of healthcare market and sector opportunities; financial management system assessments and development; financial organization configuration and management; financial statement preparation, analysis and use; costing and pricing strategies; acquisition support; and software quality assurance.
He frequently lectures on financial policy requirements, budget planning and execution, financial statement preparation and analysis, federal financial system requirements and long range strategic planning.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Frank's public and private positions provided the critical experience necessary to nurture the creativity and innovativeness that is readily apparent in his accomplishments.
As the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Management at the Department of Veterans Affairs he updated and automated financial policy and procedures, procured and installed an integrated Departmental financial management system, created a comprehensive program audit activity, designed and implemented a third party cost recovery program, redefined central office and field financial officer responsibilities and implemented the Chief Financial Officers Act.
As the Deputy Bureau Director, Health Care Financing Administration, Frank directed the implementation of the Medicare Catastrophic Legislation (prescription drugs), developed and oversaw the nationwide implementation of HCFA's Medicare Secondary Payer recovery program, planned and implemented the Medicare Automated Network.
As the Director, Office of Financial Management for the Health Care Financing Administration, Frank implemented a new on-line financial management and reporting system, revised the methodology used to prepare and submit the national Medicaid budget and restructured the format and presentation of the Medicare contractor budget.
While the Controller of USM Corporation, he streamlined financial reporting, initiated a strategic planning process which expanded profitable product lines and reduced bad debt expense by 200% and installed a direct cost system.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Frank is a Certified Public Accountant, a Certified Governmental Financial Manager, a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Association of Government Accountants and the Federal Financial Managers Council. He has served as the Chairperson of the Federal Financial Managers Council and as a Director of the Washington Chapter of the Association of Government Accountants.
Mr. WALSH. Before we begin, why don't you briefly outline your backgrounds so that our members are familiar; and if there is anyone else you would like to introduce, please feel free.
MR. EAGEN'S BACKGROUND
Mr. EAGEN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Serrano, Mr. Latham, good morning.
I am a 16-year veteran of Capitol Hill. I guess I am one of those that started at the bottom and worked his way up through the system.
I served as a legislative assistant for Congressman Steve Gunderson, became his chief of staff or administrative assistant and then moved over to Bill Goodling's office as chief of staff. I then moved down to what was then called Committee on Education and Labor as the Minority staff director and eventually became the Majority staff director before becoming the CAO.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. DERVILLE. I have a little over 30 years' experience with the Federal Government and outside of the Federal Government.
Most of my experience prior to here has been with the executive branch of the Federal Government. My last Government position before this was ''Deputy Chief Financial Officer'' for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I am a Certified Public Accountant. I am a Certified Government Financial Manager, and I have experience both on the industry side as well as the government side of financial management.
I also worked at the Health Care Financing Administration for about 7 years as the Deputy Director for program operations of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Mr. WALSH. Well, compared to the health care budget in the country, this should be a snap.
Mr. DERVILLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EAGEN. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to also introduce Tim Campen, who is the new director of House Information Resources and is seated behind us.
Mr. WALSH. The practice for these hearings is that the CAO will present the overall budget statement which has already been supplied to the members. Jay, in turn, will ask for House officers and others present to present their budgets when you get to that point.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Please proceed, and we will ask questions as they arise.
MR. EAGEN'S OPENING STATEMENT
Mr. EAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure to be appearing before the subcommittee for the first time to testify on the budget for the House of Representatives.
I was appointed to the position, as you noted, on August 1st, 1997. With nearly 6 months on the job, I can say this has been both an educational and a rewarding experience in many ways.
As established at the beginning of the 104th Congress, the CAO is the chief budget officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and is responsible for the presentation of the budget before your subcommittee. We sent to the Office of Management and Budget all materials which appear in the President's annual budget.
Later in this hearing I will further outline the fiscal year 1999 budget request for the offices of the Chief Administrative Officer, and I stand ready to assist the subcommittee in any way as you work to compile the fiscal year 1999 legislative branch appropriations bill.
I recognize that you need to have complete and accurate information. We hopefully have anticipated and gathered much of that information for you already.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We look forward to working with the subcommittee on the final budget of the House of Representatives before the turn of the century.
The fiscal year 1999 estimates submitted earlier to the Office of Management and Budget are reflected in the budget to be transmitted to Congress by the President and are detailed in your Subcommittee Print.
This statement and the Subcommittee Print may be used jointly to obtain a complete picture of the budget. At the beginning of each budget item herein, you will find a reference to a related page on the Subcommittee Print where further detail is provided.
FISCAL YEAR 1999 ESTIMATES
The fiscal year 1999 request for the House of Representatives totals $765,587,600. This amount is based on statutory entitlements, full funding of authorizations, actual spending history and consultation with administrative officers. This request includes a full-time equivalent reduction of 22 as compared with FTE's funded in fiscal 1998.
This testimony follows the same format of the appropriations bill. I will go through each individual line item in the bill and mention the current request. I invite any questions you may have, and if I am unable to respond today I will certainly provide the answer for the record in an expeditious manner.
I submit for the record a chart which itemizes the actual fiscal year 1997 expenses, appropriated funds for fiscal year 1998 and requested funds for fiscal year 1999.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I also submit for the record the balance of pages 1 through 3A.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
[Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:]
Question. Before you proceed Jay, 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. The following comparative table shows each fiscal year appropriation since fiscal year 1995 and estimated outlays. The impact of these factors is presented in the following chart.
From an FTE perspective, there have been significant related reductions. The comparative table below shows the relationship between funded FTEs and actual usage for fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997 with estimated usage for fiscal year 1998.
Question. For the record, prepare a five year table which shows the recent history of House funding and FTE levels.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Response. The information follows:
HOUSE LEADERSHIP OFFICES
Mr. EAGEN. Referring to pages 13 through 35 of the Subcommittee Print, for salaries and expenses of House leadership offices, $12,689,000. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the record the balance of pages 4 through 15 and would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. WALSH. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES
Mr. EAGEN. Referring to pages 36 through 45 of the Subcommittee Print for Members' representational allowances, including Members' personnel, official expenses and official mail, $412,964,000. Mr. Chairman, I submit the balance of page 16 for the record.
Mr. WALSH. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
[A question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:]
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Question. Funding for Members allowances is appropriated in one appropriation line item. For Fiscal 1998, how much are the Members authorized to spend, as opposed to the amount we actually appropriated? Explain that in terms of each allowance component (i.e., clerk hire, official expenses, and mail).
Response. Subsequent to the combination of Official Expenses, Clerk Hire, and Official Mail Allowances into a single MRA authorization, the MRA has been treated as a single component. The following breakdown of FY '98 MRA authorizations are used for informational purposes only and do not reflect spending limitations for the individual components of the MRA.
STANDING COMMITTEES, SPECIAL AND SELECT
Mr. EAGEN. Referring to pages 46 through 50 of the Subcommittee Print, for salaries and expenses of Standing Committees, Special and Select, authorized by House resolutions, $90,608,000.
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
For salaries and expenses of the Committee on Appropriations, including studies and examinations of executive agencies and temporary personal services for such committee, $19,731,000.
Mr. Chairman, I request to submit the balance of pages 17 and 18 for the record.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. WALSH. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
SALARIES, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Mr. EAGEN. Referring to pages 54 through 89 of the Subcommittee Print, for salaries and expenses of officers and employees, as authorized by law, $92,656,000. Included in this amount is $56,828,000, or 61 percent, for personnel, and $35,828,000, or 39 percent, for nonpersonnel items.
The offices funded under this heading include the Office of the Clerk, the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, the Office of the Inspector General, the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of the Chaplin, the Office of the Parliamentarian, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, the Office of the Legislative Counsel, the Corrections Calendar Office and Other Authorized Employees.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the balance of page 19 for the record.
Mr. WALSH. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Mr. EAGEN. Referring to pages 57 through 58 of the Subcommittee Print, for salaries and expenses for the Office of the Clerk, $15,817,000.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the balance of page 20 for the record.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. EAGEN. I am pleased to introduce the Honorable Robin Carle, Clerk of the House.
Mr. WALSH. We would welcome the Clerk to the table at this time.
OPENING STATEMENT
Ms. CARLE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Latham. I am pleased to once again be able to appear before your subcommittee to discuss the operations of the Offices of the Clerk and to outline the request I have submitted regarding the fiscal year 1999 budget cycle.
Your subcommittee is familiar with my responsibilities as the chief legislative officer for the Congress. I am responsible for the House's most traditional legislative activities and a host of other services and programs related to its operation. For your convenience, I have attached to my testimony a general organizational chart of the Offices of the Clerk and the programs under my purview.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As I tell people who visit our offices, the actual steps and procedures which underpin the legislative processes of the House are many and rather remarkable. However, since they are performed so quietly, efficiently and professionally by the team of employees in the Offices of the Clerk, many Members and staff are almost completely unaware of the complexities of keeping the organizational systems of the legislative process functioning.
Our goal remains to provide the backdrop and machinery for the legislative process and debate—without influencing the outcome of the policymaking. Such a goal is much more complicated than it may sound, and it always relies on the professionalism of the staff of our offices.
Traditionally, my office's activity is clearly dictated by the legislative schedule.
Included in my formal statement are statistics on House Floor activity. Overall, these statistics show that this was a busier than average session but not a record-setting one.
FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET SUBMISSION
Let me summarize the fiscal year 1999 appropriations request I have forwarded to the subcommittee for consideration. When compared with fiscal year 1998, I am seeking a decrease of .92 percent, or $147,000.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
For fiscal year 1999, I am requesting a total for the Offices of the Clerk of $15,817,000, of which $11,754,000 is being requested for personnel and $4,063,000 for nonpersonnel expenses. This request has been achieved by eliminating any fiscal year 1999 funds for merit or overtime costs. Such expenses for fiscal year 1999 will be absorbed within other personnel funds being requested. The request maintains the FTE level of 265 people for the Offices of the Clerk.
DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
In general, the fiscal year 1999 budget plan for the Offices of the Clerk maintains funding for a host of projects already under way. This includes funding for the continued effort to design and implement a comprehensive Document Management System for the legislative processes of the House.
As mandated by this subcommittee, I am continuing to work with the secretary of the Senate and other legislative branch agencies to establish various electronic information standards for the future and to develop seamless information transfer capabilities. This effort is central to efforts to reduce the costs of printing and information creation while also providing expanded options and opportunities to make various forms of information publicly available.
To date, the steps to accomplish this monumental task have proven more time consuming and more complex than initially anticipated, but it has been beneficial. The process has forced a much clearer definition of the steps involved in the administrative processes behind the legislative work of the Congress. In addition, it has developed avenues for surprisingly productive discussion between legislative branch agencies and the House and Senate offices on the needs for various procedures, systems and reporting requirements.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I am pleased to report that over the last year various evaluations on the needs of the House have been conducted and further efforts to design and better diagram our needs is well under way. This multi-agency effort is progressing at or slightly behind the time lines originally proposed to the subcommittee 2 years ago. However, I remain hopeful that it can be completed within the next 3 years.
Although progress may seem slow, there are several notable accomplishments to which we can point, most notably in electronic document use and public dissemination of electronic information. Working with the staff of the Committee on House Oversight, my office developed programs to assist committees in preparing and posting electronic versions of hearings and hearing transcripts through the Thomas system used on the Clerk's computers. Only hearing information submitted by the committees and specifically approved by the chairman is posted.
Since May of 1997, when this service first became available, over 400 hearings have been processed for review and have been posted by my office.
FLOOR VOTE INFORMATION
Another highlight is the processing and posting of House floor vote information through the Thomas system. My staff, with the approval of the Committee on House Oversight and the Speaker's Office, has developed a procedure to post House votes on the Internet the same day they occur.
Also, last June, we established the Clerk's home page as a vehicle for providing more information electronically rather than relying solely on paper copies. Electronic documents compiled and printed by the Office of the Clerk are carried there and updated on the first day of each month.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Included in my nonpersonnel budget request, I have budgeted money to allow for further evaluation and improvement of the House floor systems, primarily the House voting machine and the main display panels which list each Member's name and vote.
At the beginning of the 105th Congress, the House voting system was upgraded to a smart card system and updated software improvements were installed. At the beginning of this month, new summary panels were installed on the floor. This was the second significant phase of improvement to the system since I became Clerk.
The final phase of this upgrade requires that we thoroughly evaluate the current Member listing display panel and options to update and improve it. This voting board is the last original piece of the 1973 system and its age is beginning to raise questions about its dependability. I have included $200,000 in the fiscal year 1999 funds to cover this evaluation and determine the potential cost of the replacement. If necessary, I plan to spread these costs over two fiscal years.
A primary objective is that none of these changes affect the physical appearance of the Chamber and work within the existing physical configuration there.
HOUSE VOTING CARDS
On a personal note, Mr. Serrano, you raised the question last year regarding House voting cards and their reliability. Most important, you raised concerns about the voting cards in the 104th Congress being frayed easily and needing to be replaced regularly.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
With the improvements implemented with the new voting cards, the number of damaged cards dropped from 328 in 1996 to 16 in 1997. So that is a 95 percent reduction, a good number for us.
A completely different yet equally important program for the Congress is the evaluation and potential management improvements in the House Page Program. As you are aware, this program is also under my purview. I rely on the input of the House Page Board to assist in developing the policy for the program and to provide our pages with direct access to Members and to the legislative process.
Over the last several weeks, we have been working to complete an evaluation of the program, its strengths, goals, and areas for improvement. The program includes a review of the work program, the school and dormitory. Upon completion of the review, I will be working with the House Page Board and others to see that all options for improvement and modifications are fully considered.
LEGISLATIVE RESOURCE CENTER
Finally, over the last few months, great interest has developed regarding the opening and further reorganization of the Legislative Resource Center. The center has proven to be an important and valued addition to the House. The center combined the activities of four former offices: Records & Registration, the House Historian, House Librarian, House Document Room; has increased services via electronic systems and resulted in a significant reduction in personnel and costs.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
While some have criticized the resulting reductions in personnel, it has been and remains my intention to maintain and improve services, but to also cut costs when possible. This has been true in the LRC and all other offices under my purview.
As a final note, my office has assumed the management of a significant number of vacant congressional offices this year. During the first session of the 105th Congress, we have had to manage six offices and more than 60 staff. While this is always a challenge, I acknowledge both the efforts of my office and, more importantly, the staffers in those offices working to make the work of the Congress go forward for the people of those districts. It is always my hope that no such vacancies occur for any reason, but they are a reality and one that I am always prepared to undertake with the best interests of the institution in mind.
Once again, I appreciate having this brief opportunity to appear before your subcommittee, and I appreciate the support you and the Committee on House Oversight have provided over the last year and look forward to working with you in 1998. If you have any questions, I am obviously prepared to respond.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WALSH. Thank you for your testimony. I do have a couple of questions, and then I will give the other Members an opportunity to ask, too.
Ms. CARLE. Okay.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. WALSH. I have a question that I would like to submit for the record.
[A question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:]
Question. How much is in your budget request for the Document Management System?
Response. Included in the Clerk's FY99 request is $1.5 million for the Document Management Systems further development, the same amount as FY98.
DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE
Mr. WALSH. Last year, we provided a million and a half to begin a document management initiative. Could you tell us how this is working out so far and how it has been met by Members and their offices?
Ms. CARLE. Well, a lot of the work so far is work you don't see, but is to build the framework for the final product. What we did is what you directed us to do, it was to go off and work with legislative branch agencies and the Senate to ensure that we all agreed to having a common standard computer language. We contracted with a company called the Mulberry Group and came to that common agreement, which was a feat. And now we are to the second part of it, which is building the SGML structure and architecture.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Right now we have a series of meetings going on at the staff level between various affected parties, committee staff, Clerk staff and the Senate staff. The objective is to identify and set the standards for the production of bills and resolutions, and then the next step is going to be committee reports and the Congressional Record. On one level the process is very tedious, but it has to be done the right way or the whole structure won't stand.
We also have an RFI, a request for information, out that is intended is to fully identify technical and software requirements for the House document management system the needed computer equipment, the capabilities, the capacity and projected costs for procurement. Currently we have distributed the RFI to 15 vendors, and we anticipate final contract within the next 2 months.
And so the next steps are creation of additional contracts for the actual development of the workflow software, and then the procurement of equipment for the system.
Mr. WALSH. That's moving along?
Ms. CARLE. Yes.
Mr. WALSH. On the RFI—once you have decided on a contractor, how long would you say before——
Ms. CARLE. I think, again, it's according to the Procurement Office and the GSA-approved contractors, but we are thinking within the next 2 months we should be to the next phase.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Now, I think that the initial negotiation was time-consuming but worth it, because now that we are to a common place, things should be able to move along pretty well. And, we we will be pretty close to the time lines we suggested at the beginning.
LINDY BOGGS CONGRESSIONAL READING ROOM
Mr. WALSH. Okay. I would also like to ask you to briefly discuss the Lindy Boggs Congressional Reading Room. We toured that a month or so ago, and there was a little concern about the availability of funds because of some of the things that you ran into, because of the historic significance of the room. Could you give us a little idea where that is now?
Ms. CARLE. First of all, I have to thank you because you got things up and on their way again. Initially, the reason that we were going into the room at all was to bring the restroom facilities up to ADA compliance and a couple of the other areas. The room hadn't been upgraded for a number of years, close to 20 years, and so it is rather shabby around the edges and the elected women use it a lot.
When we got into the room there were other issues that seem to come up with an old building, that include asbestos and lead paint. Before you knew it, it kind of took on a life of its own. So, fortunately, when you took a tour, you had a better sense of that than I did.
Mr. WALSH. Well, for the record, I guess, I had had the opportunity to travel with the Speaker. We went on to Congressman Bono's funeral and I mentioned the problem that they may not have the funds available because of the additional expenses, and he said, find the money.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. CARLE. That's great.
Mr. WALSH. So that was resolved very quickly that day.
Ms. CARLE. It is amazing how that works.
Mr. WALSH. Your office has been just terrific.
Ms. CARLE. It is going to be a very nice space. As I said, the women Members need it and use it. So I will be real pleased when we are finished with the project.
Mr. WALSH. Great. Thank you.
Anyone else, questions?
Congressman Serrano.
REORGANIZATION OF THE LRC
Mr. SERRANO. Yes. Thank you.
First of all, let me thank you for the new voting cards. I was the king of the frayed cards, but I still have the same one that was issued this last time. So these did not fall apart around the edges.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Not an issue that's nice to touch on, but I guess you know that a flap has been reported in the press about the reorganization of the Legislative Resource Center and, as some people have put it, some ''abrupt dismissals'' that took place there. Some accusations and allegations have been made that the firings were—that the dismissals came down heavy on ethnic and racial minority staff, and I think it is something we should address and deal with before it becomes an issue bigger than it is now.
Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Payne have been very clear and forthright on this issue.
I would like to give you a couple of these thoughts, and you can speak to any or all of them, about the reorganization: why was it necessary, other than the obvious reasons; how were these folks dismissed; why not attrition or vacancies?
And then in 1996, we let go from your department some folks, and now in today's Roll Call there is an ad asking, as we understand it, to fill those positions or similar positions, and we would like to know if those folks, the ones who were dismissed earlier, were advised of these vacancies. And in general how do we address the fact that there is a growing feeling on the part of some people in the media and of many people on my side of the aisle that, one, people were treated according to party affiliation, party philosophy, and two, there was disregard for the small, already small, number of ethnic and racial minorities.
There was talk about the only Jewish member of the department let go and 50 percent of all the African Americans let go. There was no mention of any Hispanics let go, but that could be because there were none. But that's another issue.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
So I would just like you to comment in general about it.
Ms. CARLE. Well, the reorganizational issues of the Resource Center, I first wish to speak to the abrupt part. It isn't new. We have been in the process of this reorganization since I got here, and we had the initial decision to combine the offices, and then we had the physical move to the new space. I could have made all of those decisions when we were moving to the new space, but quite frankly I did not want to move in a precipitous fashion. And I wanted all of those people to be in the same place for awhile to basically figure out how many people does it take to run the front counter, and how many people does it take to man the phones, we didn't really have a good sense of that in the beginning. While I had sort of rough cuts in my mind, until people were working day to day in that environment, we really didn't want to get ahead of ourselves.
We spent a year, and some of it we did manage through attrition. Of the 17 positions that were eliminated, 11 of them were vacant positions, and we have made a conscious decision not to fill those. But you can't do all of your management decisions based on attrition, and so, unfortunately, there were some people who ended up on the list of positions that were being eliminated.
You know, all I can say is that we didn't violate law or principle on how the process worked. And I think, you know, in terms of the media piece, it is rather reckless to suggest something so hateful that would have been the intention within the Office of the Clerk and me personally. And it wasn't.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
But, you know, I have been on the receiving end of reorganization and new administrations, and you can say all of those things, but when it is said and done, if you are the one person who is affected, it doesn't help you a whole lot that people are sympathetic to it or understanding of it because you are still the one without a job.
We always try to place people, when we know we are going to go through reorganization, and we have gone through a number of other offices, not as dramatically as this one because this one was the combining of so many of our offices. But we always try to find other opportunities if we have them.
The whole shop was reorganized, and the remaining people were all people who already worked there. We could have done a reorganization and start completely over, and we didn't choose to do that.
Mr. SERRANO. Well, Ms. Carle, you are not going to get any arguments from anyone here about the way the press treats all of us, and you have that in your favor in this argument, but every so often they stumble upon something, whether they like it or not. And how do you address the fact that there are members, not quoted by name, but members of the current staff, who feel that there is a systematic effort to isolate and intimidate those who do not fit a political mold?
Now, whether that's true or not, we in this profession, and certainly anyone who is related to us in any way, shape or form, when these kinds of things begin to float around, we have to address them. If you let them go, they get bigger.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that this is not going on, but this is being said and this is being felt, and to simply state that this is not happening is really not enough. We have to somehow get to the bottom of why there are people who were not dismissed who feel that there is something going on; why House aides who have been fired claim that it was for political reasons.
And how do we deal with the fact that the Majority, when it took over, made a very bold statement and a very important statement about the fact that we would professionalize the place without regard to political philosophy?
And I will be honest with you, once my side of the aisle got over the initial pain of losing the Majority, which is very normal, and any Member of the Minority will tell you that is normal, we applauded the fact that we were going in that direction, and now we seem to find that we are not going in that direction at all.
So my last comment to you on this is whether we like it or not, we have a problem. We have people who feel that there is a racial mix in this, that there is a political mix, and that there is heavy-handedness. We have to deal with that. I am asking you, how do we deal with that, other than to do what we all are guilty of doing at times, which is, state ''that is not true and I don't want to talk about it''?
Ms. CARLE. You know, I am a rather moderate personality and I think that shows up in the way I manage things, too. You look at the overall Offices of the Clerk, I am not sure by percentage, but is it 80 percent are people who—it is a sizable percentage. I mean, there was nothing in my plan in terms of reorganization of the Offices of the Clerk to eliminate everyone who had worked here before and replace them with someone else. You know, I just don't work that way. I am not that kind of a person.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. WALSH. Can I interrupt for a second?
You said 80 percent. You didn't finish that statement.
Ms. CARLE. You look at the numbers within the LRC, 80 percent of the people who work there are people who worked there when I got here.
And I appreciate what Mr. Serrano is saying, and all I can bring to bear on it is the good news and the bad news. If you are a highly partisan person. The good news from my perspective is that the Offices of the Clerk, your partisan credentials don't really fit. They don't matter.
It is like this official reporter, can she use the court reporting equipment or not; if she has an ''R'' or a ''D'' after her name is of no consequence. And certainly, I am sure we have hired people who are Republicans. I am not suggesting that we haven't. But there is no great plan. The plan is that, when we have a vacancy, to hire someone who is qualified for the job, and when we have staff, incumbent staff, that we cross-train or retrain or move to a different shop when we can.
Mr. SERRANO. Let me just close with this, because, Jim, I don't want to beat this subject to death, but it is important, I believe.
First of all, you are right, there are many departments, if not all, that service us, where ''R'' and ''D'' and independents and liberals is not important. I certainly feel very safe knowing that the Sergeant at Arms will protect meself and my family in case of a problem; so will the Capitol Police. I certainly don't have a problem going to the Attending Physician and wondering if he is going to give me the wrong medicine because I am a liberal Democrat, although I am sure some people in the country would like to do that.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. WALSH. There is no cure for that.
Mr. SERRANO. That's right. Thank God for that. It may spread again, though.
But here is what I am asking you to do: At the expense of going out of line here, the Chairman and I have the responsibility of making sure that these issues which are in-house are kept at a minimum debate, and you could help me by staying in touch on this issue and making sure that we explain it for what it is, if it is what you say it is; and if it isn't exactly what you think it is, then we can fix it. I am sure we can fix it.
There are qualified people all over the country who would like to work on Capitol Hill when an opening occurs. And if you do that, you will make our life easier, and then we make your life easier because this is a Committee that works very closely with the employees of the House. There are other committees, if you really notice, that work and set policy, and somehow it touches someone, but this Committee does work very closely with people who labor here together, and, therefore, it is in our best interest that this gets settled, because I know these issues. Trust me, the part of politics I know well is how these issues grow, and this one looks like it can explode into a serious one unless we deal with it early.
Ms. CARLE. I appreciate that. I am more than glad to work with you on it.
[Questions from Mr. Serrano and responses follow:]
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Question. Can you provide a quick review of the purpose behind the comprehensive Legislative Resource Center reorganization plan?
Response. As I outlined during my FY 96, FY 97 and FY 98 testimony and again this year before this subcommittee, I have had a strong interest in combining various service and administrative functions under my purview. The objectives of this effort were to improve services, centralize locations and reduce overall cost to the House. Generally, the creation of the Legislative Resource Center was the result of combining four separate offices (Records & Registration, Historian, the House Library and the House Document Room) into a single office. This merging of offices and functions has allowed the staffing levels to be reduce from 69 to 26, with an estimated annual salary savings of more than $1.6 million.
Question. I share Congressman Payne's concerns, as expressed in the January 28 issue of The Hill about the House's compliance with labor laws when ''close to 75% of African American workers have been terminated [from LRC] since 1994''. In the spirit of saving time, I would ask that you respond in writing to each of these concerns outlined in the recent article.
Response. I simply cannot comment on issues relative to specific individuals. However, I appreciate the opportunity to generally address many inaccuracies and innuendo raised over the last few weeks.
The justification of reducing staff in the Legislative Resource Center was based upon my management and business determination on the facility's staffing needs, issues relative to service and an overall effort to reduce costs. In early January, an additional 17 authorized positions were eliminated as part of a further re-organization, 11 positions were vacant, vacancies having occurred through attrition and six were filled positions. The re-organization resulted in reducing the staffing levels from 43 to 26 authorized positions.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As the employing authority, I am keenly aware of the legal and ethical requirements I face regarding discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability and national origin. As well, I understand the further requirements of the Congressional Accountability Act. I am confident that my determinations are legally and ethically within these considerations. However, employees under the Congressional Accountability Act have the right to have such matters legally reviewed.
Finally, let me state that several points raised within the news accounts are grossly inaccurate. First, the six released employees were each met with separately by my Deputy and Assistant for personnel issues. Each dismissed employee was notified of the situation, granted 30 days of administrative leave and encouraged to work with my immediate office to relocate to other employment opportunities. As well, House placement services are available to such individuals. No armed guards were present or requested by management. As is the practice in handling separating employee's checkout procedures, computer access was limited and office locks were changed at the end of the business day. However, managers worked extended hours so individuals were not inconvenienced and to ensure access to personal items. In addition, employees have been informed that any personal computer files that they wish to retrieve will be made available to them. As I stated previously, no political agenda was pursued in this reorganization and no form of discrimination occurred.
EMPLOYMENT POLICIES
Mr. WALSH. Let me, if I could, just follow up real quick because I think this is fairly serious, that there would be any hint that there was bias in hiring or firing, politically or in terms of ethnicity or gender or whatever. I can't believe that there is, but let me just ask a question: Do you ask individuals who are applying for a job whether they are Republican or Democrat?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. CARLE. No.
Mr. WALSH. Do you ask that that be part of their résumé when they present it to you?
Ms. CARLE. No. I mean, sometimes it is, obviously, but, no, that is not something we ask.
Mr. WALSH. It is not a condition of employment?
Ms. CARLE. No, it is absolutely not a condition of employment.
Mr. WALSH. Is it important to you to know whether an individual is Republican or Democrat?
Ms. CARLE. No.
Mr. WALSH. Do you feel that the hiring practices of your office are in compliance with all the Federal guidelines that we all have to follow in hiring and firing?
Ms. CARLE. Yes, I know they are. We are quite intimately related to the legal staff here in the House. We are very careful.
Mr. WALSH. Obviously, the press can report what they will, and there is nothing we can do about that, but your feeling is that you are quite comfortable that the decisions you are making are proper?
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. CARLE. I am, I am. But I also recognize Mr. Serrano's point that one doesn't want even the aura of discrimination.
Mr. WALSH. Sure.
Ms. CARLE [continuing]. Around hiring.
Mr. SERRANO. There is, Mr. Chairman, the possibility always, with all due respect to the Clerk, for anyone who heads a department, that some hiring is done, as on many occasions in our offices, through someone's recommendation. If someone is recommending only people with a certain agenda in mind, then, yes, it is possible that you have a department head doing exactly what they are supposed to do, but what is coming to them has another agenda in mind.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Latham.
Mr. LATHAM. Do you ask about religion?
Ms. CARLE. No.
Mr. LATHAM. Obviously you wouldn't.
Now, I think it is probably an inherent concern, especially if you are trying to downsize or make that type of change as to who is going to not be there anymore, and it may be perceptions sometimes don't fit with reality. But it is something obviously that perception is important, too.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
But I really don't have any question other than to say that I think we share the concern. I really think, you have been through a very difficult time, and it is hard to do these things, and, you know, being an employer myself in another life, you have people and it is one of the hardest things you have to do, but you have people whose feelings are hurt or whatever after the fact, and that is only natural. So I have empathy for you, and also I think that we need to be sensitive to the perception.
Ms. CARLE. Okay.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a more fun question?
Mr. WALSH. Certainly.
Mr. SERRANO. I don't want to leave you, you know, under that.
Mr. LATHAM. Is this about Frank Sinatra? I am sorry, I should have never said that.
Mr. SERRANO. I told the Chairman and his three children of your usual outburst about Mr. Sinatra. They will be calling you later to discuss with you his music catalog.
HIR MAINFRAME COMPUTER
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. SERRANO. The HIR mainframe computer is currently the one that's being used. What will happen to your computer systems when HIR moves off this technology? I understand there are going to be some changes. What does that do?
Ms. CARLE. We have been working with House Oversight and also the HIR people about those Clerk functions that need to be replicated on some other system and those that have been overcome by new technology and we are already doing our work somewhere else already, and tandem with that the year 2000 issues and some other issues.
And I feel confident right now that Clerk functions are being handled and will be able to be handled. We have a couple of them we are still figuring out the right way to do it, but we are working very closely with them.
Mr. SERRANO. Very quickly, in general terms, I know you mentioned, do you feel that we are moving quickly on continuing to bring your department and the whole House into this age—that we all claim was here 10 years ago, but we are now trying to catch up a little bit?
Ms. CARLE. I think we are moving at a good pace. Quickly might be optimistic, but I think we are getting pretty close to meeting our time lines, yes.
Mr. SERRANO. Thank you.
Mr. WALSH. Thank you.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS
Mr. EAGEN. Mr. Chairman, referring to pages 59 through 60 of the Subcommittee Print for salaries and expenses, for the Sergeant at Arms, $3,611,000. I would like to submit the balance of page 21 for record, and I would like to introduce the Honorable Wilson Livingood, Sergeant at Arms for the House of Representatives.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WALSH. Welcome, Bill.
Mr. LIVINGOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WALSH. Please present your statement. Feel free to summarize.
Mr. LIVINGOOD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Latham. It is a pleasure to be here this morning to discuss the fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Office of the Sergeant at Arms.
I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the members of the committee for your support this last year and actually every year that I have been here. As you know, my office is constantly striving to ensure that the safety and security of all Members of Congress, their staff, visiting world leaders and the general public is maintained. However, achieving this security, as I have said before, is unique in that we must balance the security goals with the public needs and demands for access to the Capitol and to their Representatives. I am pleased to report that, in my opinion, we have been very successful in achieving this balance.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET SUBMISSION
Currently, in my office, there are 82 FTEs as authorized. The total fiscal year 1999 budget request, as Mr. Eagen said, is $3,611,000. This is an increase of 1.32 percent from the total fiscal year 1998 budget. This small increase is due to cost of living adjustments and personnel expenses, offset by a nearly 25 percent decrease in nonpersonnel expenses.
The nonpersonnel costs for fiscal year 1999 are estimated to be $308,000. The decrease of $100,000 from fiscal year 1998 nonpersonnel expenses is largely due to the fact that many of our expenses are cyclical, occurring only in preparation for the first session of each Congress, such as identification badges for congressional staff, license plates, and pins, for Members, etc.
I am requesting $3,303,000 for personnel expenses, an increase of $147,000 from fiscal year 1998. This increase is based on COLA estimates, longevities, and merit increases. I have no requests for new positions or reclassifications.
I am proud to say that since I came aboard as Sergeant of Arms, each year I have been able to trim our office budget. In fact, the total budget request for fiscal year 1999 is less than our fiscal year 1997 budget.
I would like to thank the CAO and the Office of Finance for their assistance with our budget preparation.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I appreciate the privilege of appearing before the committee and assure you of my desire to cooperate and work with you on all matters of mutual interest. It is my goal to provide quality support services to the House of Representatives while remaining fiscally responsible.
I have submitted a more detailed statement for the record and will continue to keep the committee informed of my activities. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WALSH. Thank you very much.
Your budget ought to be a model for the entire legislative branch, up just a little over 1 percent. We will be hearing the Capitol Police budget at a later time, and we will have more questions on that budget for you then. That will be next week, I believe.
Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, sir.
Mr. WALSH. And there are some security issues there that we may have to take special measures to deal with. But at this time I have no further questions.
Mr. Serrano.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURES
Mr. SERRANO. I did have a question. But you just reminded us that security issues may have to be discussed somewhere else. In your statement, you do speak about emergency evacuation. So stop me if I am going over.
Mr. LIVINGOOD. I will, sir.
Mr. SERRANO. I am just interested in what training has been available to Members' offices to deal with this issue.
Mr. LIVINGOOD. We have started, as you are aware, the first evacuations from the Capitol and House office buildings and have had our first fire drills, starting with the page dorms, and now we have had it in the Capitol, for the first time ever. We have distributed a fire evacuation plan, an evacuation plan which could be for anything, to every Member's office. We will be revising the plan as time goes on to make sure it is current.
We are training the Capitol Police in the area of emergency evacuation. They have the responsibility in every building, for stairwells, and all exits. We are training the Guide Service so they can assist in evacuating tours, and people visiting the Capitol. We are training people in my office, meaning the Chamber security, my immediate office, and parking security, to help in all this. So we do an awful lot of training.
Mr. SERRANO. The first fire drill went well?
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LIVINGOOD. It went surprisingly well. We learned a few lessons that we have corrected, and, in fact, because of the training we had prior to that, it went very well. And we will have more.
Mr. SERRANO. On Members' office guidelines, you said they were sent out already?
Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, sir. They were sent out about 6 months ago to every office. They were hand carried by the Capitol Police. And I know they were delivered because I received various informational calls. And if anybody does not have one, just call me and we will make sure that they have it immediately.
Mr. SERRANO. Thank you.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Latham.
EXPLANATION OF 1997 INCREASE
Mr. LATHAM. I would just like, Mr. Chairman, to compliment you as far as trying to keep the request appropriate, I guess.
One question, just historically: Why is there such an increase from 1996 to 1997? It is from $1.6 million to $3.8 million the next year.
Mr. WALSH. I will let the Sergeant at Arms explain that.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LATHAM. I mean, this is just a question, I guess, just to see what the jump was, on 59.
Mr. LIVINGOOD. That is when I first came. They took the Doorkeeper's Office and moved part of that to my office. So I inherited a substantial number of people, and it is salaries and equipment for them. It was combining part of the Doorkeeper's Office with the Sergeant at Arms Office.
Mr. LATHAM. I assumed it had to be additional responsibilities or something.
Mr. LIVINGOOD. And one area, garage attendants, had been under the Architect of the Capitol, and that was given to me by the committee, which has worked out well.
If I may say one thing, I had little reservations about, as some of you know, taking the parking attendants and making them security. It has worked out magnificently. I am so proud of them and what they have done and achieved. I could not be happier with that decision.
And I would just like to say, if I could, on Mr. Serrano's question on emergency evacuation, my thanks particularly to the cooperation we have had in this, all this evacuation and fire drills, et al., with the Senate Sergeant at Arms and also the Architect of the Capitol and the Physician's Office. We have never had a closer working relationship than we do today, and this has brought all of that together. We meet constantly once or twice a week, that often, and talk to each other almost every day. And never before has that been the case.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[A question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:]
Question. What is in the request for the Guide Service and Special Services?
Response. In FY 1999, the total budget request for the Capitol Guide Service and Congressional Special Services Office is $2,195,000. This represents an increase of $204,000 over FY 1998 appropriated funds. The majority of the increase is to cover inflationary costs in agency contributions, cost of living adjustments, and provision for adequate uniforms for employees. The Capitol Guide Service is also requesting $85,000 for an additional three FTEs for FY 1999. These employees are needed to assist with the dramatic increase in visitation to the Capitol and to cover extended hours of operation during the peak visitor season (March through August). The Congressional Special Services Office is requesting an additional $10,000 to cover inflationary increase in the costs associated with providing sign language interpretation to Congressional offices and the public.
Mr. WALSH. Anyone else?
Thank you very much.
Mr. SERRANO. Thank you.
Mr. LIVINGOOD. Thank you, sir.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Mr. WALSH. Back to you, Jay.
Mr. EAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now referring to pages 61 through 62 of the subcommittee print, the fiscal year 1999 budget request contains total funding of $58,829,000 for the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. I would like to include in the record pages 22 through 28.
Mr. WALSH. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET SUBMISSION
Mr. EAGEN. Mr. Chairman, before I present the CAO budget, I would like to express a brief word of thanks to Mr. Jeff Trandahl, who is sitting in with us today. Jeff has returned to his position as Deputy Clerk of the House and served as the acting CAO prior to my appointment to the position. He was tremendously helpful to me personally in a transition period that was sometimes difficult, and I think he served the House very well, and I just want to note that for the record.
Mr. WALSH. Well, that is now part of the record. And I will certainly associate myself with your remarks. He knew exactly what he wanted, and it was not your job. So I believe it has worked out very well for both of you. We are delighted to have Jeff with us this morning. And he did do a great job.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. EAGEN. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer was established at the beginning of the 104th Congress. Included as part of my statement is a detailed organizational chart with division listings of the CAO. Also included is a chart showing the fiscal year 1998 funding by division compared to the fiscal year 1999 requests.
Simply, the organization consists of 6 divisions, overseeing 32 offices, more than 600 House personnel, and has oversight responsibilities for more than 200 contracts. The six divisions include the CAO immediate office, the Office of Finance, Human Resources, House Information Resources, Median Support Services, and finally the Office of Procurement and Purchasing.
The mission of the CAO organization is to provide excellent administrative services to the U.S. House of Representatives. As a professional team, it is proactive and focused on the evolving needs of Members and concerns of the House community.
We approached the fiscal year 1999 budget development process with four basic goals. First, our budget request must reflect the ability to proactively provide baseline services as well as new services to the Members and staff.
Second, we would take a fresh look at the necessity and efficiency of each function, we would question the continued need for each major function, and we looked at alternative ways to the way we are delivering service, and we ensured ourselves that the end product was responsive to the House needs.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Third, all senior managers would be a part of the process and, thus, support the end product.
And, finally, we produced a final budget which was reflective of the overall funding challenges facing all of Government.
For the future, as we look to the remainder of calendar year 1998 and look forward to fiscal year 1999, I have included in my formal statement five principles that I believe the CAO will focus on, division statements for the organization, and I will skip those now but include them for the record.
As I mentioned, the total funding request for the CAO is $58,829,000. The increase, in comparison to fiscal year 1998, is driven primarily by two cyclical responsibilities carried within the CAO's budget. First is the more than $5 million net budget request for office equipment. This request, which is nearly 9 percent of the total budget, is for equipment costs incurred for the first session of the 106th Congress, 1999. The fiscal year 1998 funding for the same account is less than four-tenths of 1 percent due to the cyclical nature of these expenses. The budgetary effect of this ''saw tooth'' is presented in the chart that I would request be submitted for the record. And I have some copies to share with you.
Second, the CAO's budget request contains funds to cover the estimated expenses from the congressional transition to the 106th Congress. Simply put, these two items require funding for which there was little comparable fiscal year 1998 baseline expense. For point of comparison, the CAO budget for fiscal year 1997 was $60,169,000. The budget presented today is a 2.2 percent decrease from the fiscal year 1997 budget as revised 2 years ago.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Our top funding priority in fiscal year 1999 is a collection of coordinated projects that respond to the Year 2000 compliance challenge facing the House of Representatives. Frankly, the funding and resources required to properly address the Year 2000 challenge are a considerable limiting factor on projects the organization might pursue.
KEY TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
Among the key technology projects that the CAO will be undertaking prior to the year 2000 are a new human resources payroll system, a new inventory and fixed assets management system, revision of legislative information management system, the Clerk's system that Robin referred to, a central Year 2000 project manager to coordinate House activities, and an information campaign to make Members' offices and committees aware of Year 2000 compliance needs.
PAYROLL SYSTEM
This budget request includes a request of $2.5 million for the new human resources payroll system. Presently, the House has in place a contractor, Booz Allen, through the General Service Administration FEDSIM program, to conduct both a requirements study and a business process reengineering study. The results of these studies will be complete in the next few months.
MAINFRAME MIGRATION
In November 1995, the Committee on House Oversight adopted a resolution which called for House Information Resources to plan for the orderly elimination of its mainframe computer. This budget request assumes that this mainframe migration will occur. But the specific detail of that migration will be guided by the joint Inspector General/House Information Resources study directed by this subcommittee. The study will be concluded shortly.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In addition, the new Associate Administrator of House Information Resources, Tim Campen, is conducting a strategic assessment in order to replace an update to HIR operations.
With regard to the other major House technical system, our financial system, or Federal Financial System, FFS, funds are in this budget to continue the daily operations and to make required modifications to FFS. However, I believe the time is now at hand when the House should begin an assessment process to determine the long-term solution for its financial system needs.
POSTAL OPERATIONS
More than 6 percent of this budget request is for the postal operations contract for the House. This contract is currently being recompeted, and we have planned for an increase in the monthly fee to accommodate service changes, such as relocation of the X-ray facility presently located in the Ford Building to the off-site P Street receiving location, as recommended by the Sergeant of Arms.
The fiscal year 1999 budget request excludes amounts for merits or reclassification of positions. This does not mean there is a moratorium on these items, simply that they will be granted from budget savings as necessary. In addition, there is a moderate FTE reduction of nearly 3 percent of current approved levels.
I realize this is simply a brief overview of operations of pending fiscal year 1999 funding requests. To better articulate the daily activities, responsibilities, and proposals before the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, I have attached a brief outline of offices and operations. And I appreciate the time of the subcommittee and would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Jay.
YEAR 2000 ISSUES
I have a number of questions I will submit for the record.
[Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:]
Question. Jay, we have the material you supplied on your budget. What particular areas in the CAO's operation are you mostly focused on?
Response. I'd like to provide a response that answers this question from three complementary perspectives: organizational, strategic and functional.
Organizational: The creation of the CAO three years ago implemented some logical realignment of the boxes that make up the administrative services of the House. For the most part, that work is done. What still needs to be done is the establishment of complete policies and procedures to fit those organizational boxes. The old procedures don't work with the new boxes. Office Systems Management (OSM) is a good example. The approved equipment list was abolished, but OSM continues use of a computer inventory system based on old approved list codes. Data has to be entered twice, the new way for purchases and the old way for inventory. This is a huge waste of staff time and results in delays. This problem will likely be addressed through the fixed assets system replacement which is currently under way. A business process re-engineering element is part of the replacement program. In sum, for the next year I expect the CAO will concentrate on a wide range of procedural adjustments of this nature in order to match the organizational structure established in 1995.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Strategic: My written testimony refers to five over-arching visions. Let me stress two in response to this question about priorities. First, excellent Member and staff service. From the perspective of a House member or staff person, it remains very confusing as to who provides what service and why you have to call several offices to complete a task as simple as having a desk moved. The CAO and other House service providers (the Architect for example) have to coordinate our efforts to eliminate that confusion. Accomplishment of this goal will require cross-organizational coordination that has proven difficult to achieve and will require some ''cultural'' adjustments.
A second principle among the five is professional renewal and revitalization. The CAO organization has two immediate personnel needs. First, senior staffing vacancies need to be filled to create stability. We're close to completing that task. Second, the CAO should develop a comprehensive internal training program that, as a first priority, focuses on improving management skills. The CAO has tremendously dedicated people. Most of the managers, however, are primarily ''doers.'' In other words, they are technically strong in their specialty field, but they have had little opportunity to broaden their team management and planning skills. The CAO needs them to be not only ''doers'' but also effective leaders of their teams.
Functional: Three key functional areas require the CAO's attention for the balance of 1998 and into Fiscal Year 1999:
(1) Finances: the CAO must assure that the financial responsibilities of the House are met in the most effective and timely manner possible. For example, the House should produce its own financial statements and our long-range goal has to be an unqualified financial audit opinion from the House Inspector General.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
(2) Year 2000 Compliance: While a number of positive steps have been taken, including hiring of a Y2K project manager last September, this project requires constant focus by the CAO. Three key pieces to the puzzle will be confronted in the next three months: (a) the House human resources/payroll replacement project; (b) the fixed assets/inventory replacement project; and, (c) completion of a comprehensive plan for all other Y2K affected systems by March 31, 1998.
(3) House Information Resources: HIR has been at a crossroads for several years. Mainframe or server based technology? Legacy self-developed software or commercial off the shelf solutions? Direction has been provided by the Committee on House Oversight on these questions, but it hasn't been followed consistently. Despite this, significant progress has been made with projects like the House e-mail system, an improved telephone/backbone infrastructure and web access for Members offices. The state of confusion has been arrested and a new sense of direction begun with the hiring of a new Associate Administrator. For the future, clarification is needed as to the role HIR will play for the House and the role technology will play in assisting legislative democracy. In this regard, we plan to draft a charter for HIR for the Members review and concurrently propose a more adaptable staffing structure that is able to respond to the ever-changing technology opportunities available to the House of Representatives.
Question. The reimbursements to HIR are in significant decline. That is because you plan to phase out the use of the mainframe. Is the mainframe migration a ''fait accompli''?
Response. The OIG's Mainframe Migration Options Study provides a conceptual strategy and cost-benefit analysis on the migration path for 8 House mission critical applications. HIR is currently reviewing the recommendations of the Office of Inspector General regarding mainframe migration. The results from our review will drive our planning efforts in this area; however, current technology trends and House user requirements indicate that a shift off of the mainframe to a client server architecture and web based tools will support HIR's move to a more flexible and responsive IT organization.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Question. Where will GAO and CBO go to maintain their ADP outsourcing needs? We are particularly concerned that CBO is not left holding the bag. GAO is very capable of making a transition, but CBO is very small and relies on the larger administratively capable agencies for much of their support needs. Are you working with them to make sure this will be as painless as possible?
Response. Over the past several months we have had meetings with CBO staff regarding the migration of CBO applications off the HIR mainframe computer. Because CBO staff lack the technical expertise to manage their migration off the mainframe, HIR stands ready to assist CBO in identifying a migration path and destination site that suits the specific needs of CBO. During our meetings with CBO staff, CBO has expressed a particular interest in piggybacking its mainframe migration with the migration of the Legislative Information Management System (LIMS). Again, HIR will provide technical assistance to CBO in accomplishing the physical migration of its system.
Mr. WALSH. But let me just ask generally, this Year 2000 issue, what physical changes or otherwise operational changes will Member offices see in anticipation of the year 2000, if any?
Mr. EAGEN. If I might, Mr. Chairman, let me start to talk about what I would characterize as three broad groupings of fiscal year 2000 challenges facing the House, and then maybe I can try to tie that into what that means for Members as we see it right now. And, clearly, it is an evolving picture.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I think the first category that I would describe for you is major systems. I mentioned some of those in my testimony. What we are talking about here first is the payroll system. The Committee on House Oversight had directed that we undertake a replacement effort for the payroll system.
In the case of the inventory system, or fixed asset system, we presently in the House have three systems. We have one for telephones; one for what I would characterize as business equipment, which would mean computers, fax machines, copiers; and then, finally, we have a third for furniture. All three of these are not Year 2000 compliant. And, again, the Committee on House Oversight directed that we undertake a replacement effort for these systems.
We also have the Federal Financial System, which is outsourced, and that contractor will be responsible for Y2K fixing. The other major system is the Clerk's Legislative Information Management System, known as LIMS.
In this case, the Committee on House Oversight directed that we would not undertake an immediate replacement but instead the Clerk will look at a replacement system geared towards the Year 2004. HIR instead will fix the code. Right now, we have contractors in place that are working with House Information Resources to rewrite all that code, and we are actually done with the initial rewriting and undertaking the testing phase to make sure the fixes have been achieved.
The answer to the question, then, with those major systems as to how Members and staff will be impacted, in the case of payroll and inventory particularly, is dependent upon the requirement studies that are being conducted right now.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The final piece of the requirement studies is business process reengineering. And what we will attempt to do is have the requirements merged with the culture of the House and figure out what is acceptable to the House community.
For example, in the case of the payroll system, a key factor is that right now the House makes its payroll on a monthly basis. The Federal Government does it every 2 weeks. It has been a big cultural question as to whether the House could make that shift to a bimonthly payroll. The Department of Defense, I believe, is on a monthly payroll, but that is the only other branch of the Executive Government that is.
Those questions are not answered. The requirement study needs to be done. And a comparison with the capabilities that are in there, whether it is outsourcing or a COTS solution, all needs to be evaluated, and will be undertaken over the next few months.
YEAR 2000 AD HOC SYSTEMS
The second category of Y2K work that the House needs to pay attention to is what I would call ad hoc systems. For example, the Office of the Attending Physician has his own computer system; he keeps track of various kinds of records. That medical system is not Y2K compliant. We have developed an inventory that is in its first edition, as of this December, and when it is complete, it will list every system under the House, what its status is, and eventually what the plan is for the repair of that Y2K noncompliant system.
The final category is Members and committees. Y2K does not only affect computers, it affects potentially anything that has a chip in it, which could be a copier or a fax machine.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. WALSH. Don't our vote cards now have a chip in them, although it is not being utilized for anything?
Mr. TRANDAHL. They do, and they are Y2K compliant.
Mr. EAGEN. Thanks, Jeff.
Mr. SERRANO. They can also be traced to wherever you are.
Mr. EAGEN. In this case, I think we have two tasks in front of us. One is to work with the various vendors that supply equipment to Members' offices, to the committees, and to the House at large. We started a letter campaign that has been going on for several months saying, ''Are you, in fact, Y2K compliant? Which of your products are, and which are not?'' And, alternatively, or as a complement to that, more directly to work with the Members' offices to share that information so that, as they are making buying decisions, they focus the replacement efforts on equipment that needs to be replaced.
For example, it is typical for Members' offices at the end of the calendar year to use funds that they may have available to buy a new computer system or copier. That happened just at the end of 1997.
So we worked with the committee on House Oversight to send a ''Dear Colleague'' to all Members' offices suggesting that one of the questions that you want to ask before you buy any new equipment is, is it Y2K compliant? If it is not, do not buy it. So there is going to be some effect in terms of Members making sure that their staff are asking these questions and working with us to make sure that their systems are, in fact, compliant.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
There is some potential effect in terms of the mass operations of the House and in terms of these requirement studies that we are doing right now, and some decisions need to be made by this committee and the Committee on House Oversight as to how we want the House to function operationally.
[A question from Mr. Serrano and initial response follow:]
Question. Your statement refers to a Y2K project manager to coordinate House activities. Please expand on the activities of this position.
Response. The Year 2000 project manager is responsible for management and coordination of Year 2000 issues within HIR, within the CAO organization, and the House. He is responsible for putting in place a Year 2000 methodology that represents best practices from private industry and Government, and for adapting that methodology to function effectively in the House of Representatives. He is also responsible for developing an overall plan to meet all CAO Year 2000 responsibilities. The plan will include schedules and resource requirements to accomplish the recommended solutions. He is also providing an overall template for project plans that will be used for the approximately 32 subprojects that account for the detailed work that is the majority of the Year 2000 work. He also represents the CAO with outside organizations that are meeting to identify and share lessons learned and best practices on Year 2000 matters (e.g., the Chief Information Officers' subcommittee on Year 2000, an informal organization of Executive and Legislative Branch representatives that meet monthly on Year 2000 issues; the Washington Area Year 2000 Group, an organization of public and private Year 2000 practitioners in the Washington DC area).
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
MAJOR EXPENDITURES
Mr. WALSH. Do you anticipate any major expenditures that we could be faced with in the next year or two, all of a sudden we really are going to have to spend a lot of money to get us up to speed?
Mr. EAGEN. Well, I think for the most part the expenditures that we know of right now that are anticipated are in this fiscal year 1999 budget request.
Mr. WALSH. So how many unanticipated expenses are there?
Mr. EAGEN. I cannot answer that question. We have this inventory already in hand. The next edition of it is due by the end of the first quarter of this calendar year. We are relying on this to be the basis of determining what we have to do and what we have to fix.
Mr. WALSH. Well, obviously, you will need to look at that closely and let us know if there are any changes.
[A question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:]
Question. A large part of your increase is the equipment item. That isn't equipment for your office; it is the normal increase for new Members elected in the 1998 elections to outfit their offices with PC's, and so forth. You estimate a total expenditure of $48.7 million. How many offices have you assumed will require new equipment?
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Response. The $48.7 million is the projected total cost for all House expenses related to equipment purchases, maintenance, time & material repair, shipping, and all other miscellaneous costs. Of this amount, $28.5 million is the anticipated total for new purchases. We assume 70 offices will require new equipment.
MAIL DELIVERY FREQUENCY
The last question is—and I think it is a good one, too—why do Members' offices receive a last mail daily at about 10 p.m. and then a first mail at 8 a.m.?
I mean, I am generally—and I am not bragging, I just do not have any other place to go—I am generally in my office at 10 p.m. I do not know how many other offices are manned at 10 p.m. But I do not read the mail at 10 p.m. Could they not be consolidated into one and garner some savings somewhere?
Mr. EAGEN. I think that is a possibility that we would be happy to explore. I believe the answer to that is, that is what the contract presently provides.
Mr. WALSH. Maybe it would be a good idea to get some history on that as to why we are getting mail at 10 o'clock at night.
Mr. EAGEN. I would be happy to do that.
[A question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:]
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Question. Why do Members' offices receive a last mail daily at about 10:00 P.M. and then a first mail at 8:00 A.M.? I do not read the mail at 10:00 P.M. Could they not be consolidated into one and garner some savings somewhere?
Response. Savings would not be garnered if the 10:00 P.M. and next morning deliveries were consolidated. If a delivery were not made at 10 P.M., then the next day's 7:30 A.M. delivery would be so large that extra staffing and time would be needed to cope with the large amount of mail ready to be delivered to offices. Incoming and Inside mail is sorted continuously throughout the day. In the evening hours, the most crucial item to sort is Inside and Dear Colleague mail, which can take considerable space in a Member's mail box. When Inside Mail is completed then incoming USPS mail is sorted. The next morning, prior to 7:30 A.M., each Member receives at least one, if not two or three newspapers and more Dear Colleagues.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WALSH. Welcome, Mr. Fazio. How are you?
Mr. FAZIO. Good. Good seeing you.
HIR QUESTIONS
Mr. SERRANO. I would like to ask you a couple of questions and bunch them together on HIR. We in our office use their services, and we are always concerned about where they are heading. They appear to be moving away from information services and to information exchange, fax, e-mail services, and the like.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
First, would you describe the features of the new services? Does HIR have the appropriate hardware in place, and do they expect these services to impose new costs on use in offices?
And, secondly, HIR's intentions about creation and maintenance of Members' Web pages, particularly charging for the services, what would the impact be if some offices do not have or cannot afford to hire from HIR or an outside vendor the necessary Webmaster capabilities?
And, lastly, we are one of the offices that has been looking into setting up videoconferencing between the District office and this office here, and we know that there is only one person assigned to handling that, and we have gotten quite a bit of service from him. But I wonder, what is the future of HIR's involvement in this area of technology?
Mr. EAGEN. Let me see if I can remember all the questions and respond to them.
DIRECTION OF HIR
In a big-picture way, I believe HIR is at a crossroads. And to use a Yogi Berra-ism, if you are at a crossroads, take it. I think that what has been going on in the big picture sense, is that there has been a crossroads for HIR and it has tried to walk a couple of different directions at the same time.
Tim Campen, the director of House Information Resources, has only been with us since November 19th. In the intervening period before the departure of the previous director, we brought in KPMG Peat Marwick to do an assessment of House Information Resources. In fact, I have that document here today. It suggests, KPMG does, that a new model might better serve the House in the future. And, in some ways, that transition started before I came, and it is going to continue for the next year. It is going to have some ramifications in whether we maintain any kind of mainframe capability. The Committee on House Oversight, for example, has directed that a mainframe migration occur at House Information Resources. I alluded to that in my testimony. That is a significant transition.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[A question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:]
Question. The House Information Resources budget is under the CAO. What is in this budget for telephone instrument replacements? There was some considerable interest in that item last year. Give us an update on the replacement program.
Response. Funds have not been requested in the FY '99 budget for telephone instrument replacements due to budget priorities. However, the subcommittee did approve in the September 1997 reprogram $308,700 for new telephone handsets and their installation. Before the September 1997 reprogram, 205 Member offices had been converted to the new telephone instruments. Since the project restarted in December as a result of the September 1997 reprogram, 27 additional Member offices have been converted to new telephones for a total of 232 Member offices. It is estimated an additional 53 Member offices will be converted by April 1998 for a total of 285 Member offices with new telephone instruments.
In terms of the new services that have become a part of——
Mr. SERRANO. Excuse me. When you say ''significant,'' what effect does that have? You did not smile when you said that it was something that you were looking forward to.
Mr. EAGEN. It is not a matter that I am not looking forward to it, but it is a situation with a whole series of uncertainties at this point. The reason I say that is because the joint study that is being undertaken by the Inspector General, in which HIR is participating, is not concluded. I view that as the first key step.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
That study, at the direction of this subcommittee, is supposed to produce a cost-benefit analysis as to how a mainframe migration should occur. Until we take that study as a base foundation and then build a plan, there is a lot of uncertainty.
NEW SERVICES OF HIR
In terms of new services—and these are a result of the cyber-Congress type approach to HIR—I think the two biggest things, one you alluded to that the House has seen, is the e-mail system and, secondly, the Web interface.
Right now, we have 345 Member offices that have Websites. House Information Resources developed, I believe, 200 of those themselves. We maintain approximately 175 of those through the direct support of House Information Resources.
In the case of Exchange, the e-mail system, at the time that Microsoft installed it, my understanding is, it was the largest central e-mail installation that they had done of that particular application. Last year, at the end of the fiscal year, the House purchased a new license that will give us the flexibility to upgrade to the next level of e-mail software called Outlook. That will take us into the Year 2000, and we will be able to now transition the House from what is solely an e-mail client and has a limited scheduling capability to something that is built in with more sophisticated scheduling and tasking. I think it is the opportunity in terms of the goal of achieving the paperless office to really take the House, and it could mean significant changes for the way Members run their office, in a positive direction.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[A question from Mr. Serrano and response follow:]
Question. Roll Call reported on Cola Wars over the new food service contractor's pricing policies. A major problem for HIR was chain e-mailing of protest messages. It does'nt sound as if HIR's effort to stop chain e-mails was very effective. How did the chain e-mail effect the House computers and how can HIR more effectively limit chain e-mails?
Response: Chain e-mail or ''spam'' e-mails are difficult to proactively manage without invading the privacy of House Members and staff. These types of e-mail can originate internally from House staff or from external individuals or organizations.
The ''soda pop'' e-mail that you are referring to originated from a internal House staffer, sending it to a large number of recipients. These recipients used the ''reply all'' feature to express their comments to those who received the original message, then those who received those comments used the ''reply all'' feature to express comments to those comments and so on, causing a huge spike in message traffic started by this one e-mail. The impact of this on the computers which run the House Messaging System was an extreme degredation of service. This huge spike in traffic caused all House Members and staff to experience a large slow down in e-mail and scheduling performance until these messages were processed by the House Messaging System, and delivered to their destination.
Once these types of e-mails get into the system they are very difficult to eradicate because they are mixed in with ''real business'' e-mail. Thus leaving HIR with the only option to have the computer systems process these as expeditiously as possible.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Committee on House Oversight responded to this problem by sending out a reminder that there is an approved Information Systems usage policy in effect, reiterating appropriate use of House systems.
HIR currently has a defined method used to resolve e-mail attacks from outside sources. This is a process by which the Messaging Systems support staff works with the HIR Security staff and Associate Administrator to document the impact and initiate, by physically blocking, the delivery of e-mail from that individual or organization in response to the negative impact their e-mails may have on the House Messaging System.
VIDEOCONFERENCE TECHOLOGY
On videoconferencing, I believe we have installed videoconferencing or assisted in installing about 15 offices in the House. We also have a central videoconferencing fac