Segment 1 Of 2     Next Hearing Segment(2)


 Page 1       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    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:]


    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.









 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  





    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:]


 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 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. 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. 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.


    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.

Table 1

    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.

Table 2

    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:

Table 3


    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."


    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.

Table 4


    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.


    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."


    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  


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


 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  

    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  


    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  

    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.


    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  

    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."


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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  


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    On videoconferencing, I believe we have installed videoconferencing or assisted in installing about 15 offices in the House. We also have a central videoconferencing facility in the recording studio that Members can book for their use.

    I think this question was raised very specifically last year at last year's hearing, as well. At the time, the Director of HIR described what was needed in terms of having a videocam and so forth in Members' offices. It is still an expensive undertaking, and I think that there are still questions about as to what kind of investment will be required or appropriate for the entire House to move in that direction.


    Mr. SERRANO. I certainly share your concerns. And I can tell by your answer that, obviously, there are a lot of things that are not clear yet.
 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    My initial concern, my overriding concern, is that this department was very instrumental in bringing us to the point where we are now, and we have made quite a bit of progress going from Web pages to the videoconferencing to the cyber-Congress. And now, obviously, we are on the brink of expanding, really getting to the point where we think we should be, which changes every day with some new invention in this field, some new knowledge. And I am just wondering, if in the desires to see how cost-effective everything that is going on at HIR is there might not be also a question as to the necessity of those services provided to the Members.

    I think Member offices and Members have to know, with much anticipation, if the eventual plan may be to move HIR away from servicing Members, because up to now Members have been very dependent on that department, extremely dependent. That department has brought us into this era, this time and place, and now, if we are going to have to move and go out there, and then if we do, there should be something in place to assist Member offices. And we are dealing with a thousand vendors offering a million services and, in all honesty, we, nor anyone, except perhaps Bill Gates, have any understanding about what it is they are talking about in the first place.

    Mr. EAGEN. I do not anticipate that HIR itself is going to be out of the service business. I think service is what the CAO is all about.

    I think it is confusing for offices, and I have experienced it as an AA and as a staff director, and now as CAO, that you have what is supposed to be a closely coordinated layering of service capabilities for Members' offices. You have vendors; you have technical service representatives that are part of HIR; and then, hopefully, you have someone with some amalgam of computer capability in the office themselves, whether it is a Novell engineer-systems administrator or somebody that was a political science major that took the right courses.
 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    It is different, office by office by office. And I think one thing that we have come to recognize is that we are going to have to somehow perhaps establish some standards of how those things are going to interlink so that it is not confusing to Members offices. It is confusing to me.

    Mr. SERRANO. It is sometimes confusing to me.

    Well, thank you very much.

    [A question from Mr. Serrano and response follow:]

    Question. Without a mainframe, will HIR continue to be able to provide the National Change of Address (NCOA) service to House offices?

    Response. No, HIR will not be able to provide the NCOA services to House offices. These services will need to be provided elsewhere.

    Mr. WALSH. Mr. Latham, any questions?

    Mr. LATHAM. No.

    Mr. WALSH. Mr. Fazio, any questions?

    Mr. FAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I want to welcome Jay and his staff and wish them all the best in moving forward the CAO position.

    I know this is a relatively new position, and I know we can count on you to perform effectively and, I hope, far less prominently than your predecessor. I say that in the best sense, because I think this is a job that really does not require high profile, it just requires a job well done. I think your background in, user services here will be very helpful to others who depend on what is made available through your offices. I think you have already made that clear.


    I am also concerned about HIR. You talk about redirecting them. Is that why we are going to see a decrease in full-time equivalents of 25 people? That is the current budget, I understand. What does this downsizing imply?

    Mr. EAGEN. It implies a couple of things, and I think it is actually from the appropriated approved level from last year, a 29 FTE reduction. Part of that is a transfer of certain skill sets to more appropriate functions within the CAO, a small number.

    For example, the Committee on House Oversight this past fall approved a reorganization of the Finance Office, and we took the financial computer people, and transferred them so that they are now within the Finance Office with that system.

 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Second, it is a recognition that there is a fiscal constraint facing the entire CAO. We simply have to show some discipline. Third, it is a reflection of what is, basically, the personnel status at HIR today. The count as of 2 days ago was 220 people.

    Mr. FAZIO. So if you did not have the restraints of the overall budget, other initiatives, that you have had to engage in, if that restraint was not there, you would probably look to other staffing? Do you think it is going to at some point be important to repair some of those losses?

    Mr. EAGEN. I think that is a definite possibility. The outcome needs to be driven by this mainframe migration study, and it needs to be driven by the strategic assessment that we are doing right now.

    Mr. FAZIO. You are going to be using that as a guidepost in terms of whether you want to bring additional people on, perhaps people with different skills.


    Mr. EAGEN. Yes. And I think, in addition to that, there is an interesting article in the Business section of the Post today about the status of competition for high-quality personnel in the technology industry.

    Mr. FAZIO. Exactly. There was a feature a couple of weeks ago composed about the region and the problem of hiring in the high-tech fields. I guess that was really where I was going with my next question, merit pay. Are we going to be able to find the wherewithal to hire not just people to fill the slots, but the quality of people who we need to really perform in perhaps more challenging jobs that will be made available?
 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. EAGEN. Well, the answer is, we need to. It is going to be a challenge. In the article this morning, for example, the Post indicated that even in the private sector, most of the technology firms in this area, I think, are suffering a 20 percent vacancy.

    When we did the job search to hire Mr. Campen, one of the consultants that was on board, the person that was running HIR in the meantime, said, ''Jay, I hope you understand that for this kind of position in the private sector, we are talking about double the salary that you are offering.''

    Mr. FAZIO. I think we have got to be realistic about this. I am afraid that, just as we have been doing for years in law enforcement here, we are going to become a training ground, we are going to give people opportunities they would not have elsewhere, pay them something that would be seen as generally not adequate, and then after they get the skills, they are out the door to one of these private firms in the region and we are back starting all over again with relatively inexperienced people.

    Do you have any thoughts about how we may help you deal with this problem? because I do not think it is going to be short-term. When you have got numbers like 20 percent, you know, this is probably ongoing.

    Mr. EAGEN. I believe the first answer to that question is, again, we need to complete the strategic assessment. And what is anticipated at the end of that is a recommendation to the Committee on House Oversight for a new structure for HIR.

 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    My own personal view is that it is kind of a boxy structure that is not very adaptable and that any time technology changes, it requires us to submit a very complicated reorganization to the Committee on House Oversight, so that by the time we get that done, technology passes the House by.

    My vision personally—and this is something the committee will have to discuss, quite obviously—is that we should try to create a more flexible, adaptable organization. That is what the computer industry does, they organize themselves every month, and I think that if the committee sees that that is a wise direction to pursue, that is where I would like to go.

    With that, though, I think some of the pay levels for some of the senior managers in the organization should be raised. We already submitted an interim office reorganization proposal to the Committee on House Oversight that has been approved. It creates a deputy HIR director for the first time. And it does start, in fact, with some of those positions.

    Mr. FAZIO. When do you think that the report would be a more formal assessment?

    Mr. EAGEN. We started the process last week, where Mr. Campen presented to the senior managers the template that the Peat Marwick folks presented to us revised with some of his own stamp on it. We would like to do this in a way that involves the senior managers so they are vested and brought into it rather than just being something that Jay Eagen enforces on everybody.

 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Our hope is to have something to the Committee on House Oversight by, I think, the March 30 time frame.

    Mr. FAZIO. So we may have it at our markup hearing, some feedback from House Oversight, as to how they may proceed?

    Mr. EAGEN. Yes.

    Mr. FAZIO. Because you would hope to do something next fiscal year?

    Mr. EAGEN. We would like to move it as aggressively as possible.

    Mr. FAZIO. So we might be asked to do a supplement or, at least, reappropriating?

    Mr. EAGEN. You are thinking two steps ahead of me, Mr. Fazio. That is a good point.

    Mr. FAZIO. I am trying. I am not trying to discourage you, obviously; I am encouraging you. I realize that all of this is a lot of strain on this committee's funding, but it is penny-wise, pound-foolish for us trying to run our systems here inadequately, and we may just need to belly up to the bar, as they say, and come up with the money that is going to be required to be competitive.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I am looking forward to the assessment as well, because I think we are not at a point where we can make this decision. But I do believe it will inevitably be a part of the problem we have to solve, and it will not be easy.

    Mr. EAGEN. No.

    Mr. FAZIO. And lots of turnover, even though it is endemic in the industry, is not going to be helpful to us.


    There is one other issue I wanted to bring up, and that relates to the quarterly mass mailing reports that are now required in the Castle amendment. I just wondered, in which report were mailings on the 1st or 2nd posted in the future? Members may need to know this kind of information.

    Mr. DERVILLE. That has been a discussion within our office, as to where they go. There has been some confusion on that. We have asked each office to give us that information as of the end of December, which is, I believe, what the statute requires. And, working with them, when we find that there is a discrepancy in the actual data reported, we will reflect the correct placement for reporting depending on what is appropriate.

    Mr. FAZIO. So that is a decision that will be made kind of ongoing?
 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. DERVILLE. Yes.

    Mr. FAZIO. Would you want us to try to reconcile that? Is there a need for us to act?

    Mr. DERVILLE. At this point, I do not think so; no, sir.


    Mr. FAZIO. On the issue of financial management systems—and I apologize for not being here to hear all of your presentation—this is clearly where Members were most upset in the last regime, was the inability to get that system under control, because it was embarrassing for them to be in arrears with vendors, et cetera.

    In terms of voucher processing and monthly reporting, have we got that system put together now to the degree that you are satisfied?

    Mr. EAGEN. Frank can fill you in on the details, but my sense is that we have. We are still, however, in what is characterized as a stabilization phase, for the Federal Financial System, FFS. FMS is the payroll system. We process 80,000 vouchers a year.

    We keep a daily tracking record of the point that that voucher gets to the Finance Office to the point the check is cut. For 1997, the average processing time was 6.17 days. What Members remember so vividly was the period shortly after, as I understand it, FFS was installed, that processing time was up to about 18 days. The goal is 5 days.
 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    One thing that we have done as part of the Finance Office reorganization that the Committee on House Oversight approved is modify the voucher processing. The administrative handling of it, was handled by an outside contractor, Don Richards Associates. We have brought that back in House, or shortly will do so.

    Our hope is that, with full-time employees and less turnover that is part of the contract, we will be able to get that down within that 5-day limit.

    Mr. FAZIO. We are getting into publicization from privatization?

    Mr. EAGEN. Professionalization.

    Mr. FAZIO. Professionalization? I like that.

    Well, I am sure Mr. Hoyer and I, having been through that period on the Oversight Committee, find this kind of delicious actually. But it is getting us to the 5-day turnaround, and that is the key.

    Mr. EAGEN. That is the objective, yes.

    Mr. FAZIO. I have some other questions for the record. But I thank you very much. I wish you well.

 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    [Questions from Mr. Fazio and responses follow:]

    Question. Last year there was a controversy about the release of social security numbers from payroll files, and two people lost their jobs over it. But I understand that these payroll certification forms are not now available to the public after having been available for 20 years. What are your plans for making this information available again? Is it a question of resources: for example, are you lacking the necessary resources to clean up the microfilm to make this information available?

    Response. Last Fall, it was discovered that a significant number of Social Security numbers of House employees had been released when microfilmed copies of payroll certification forms from employing House offices were made publicly available at the Legislative Resource Center. Copies of payroll certifications altered to ensure the removal of all personal or confidential information i.e. Social Security numbers, had traditionally been made available to the public in the Center. In light of the discovery that errors in processing had occurred, I immediately directed that all payroll certification files be removed from the LRC's public information area until a review of payroll certification files could be completed, a determination made regarding the extent of the problem and a report given to the Committee on House Oversight.

    After reviewing the LRC's payroll certification files from 1977 to 1997, it was determined that a variety of errors had occurred consistently throughout the years of processing this data. Social Security numbers had been inappropriately released for several years and I had no confidence that any of the files could be utilized or corrected for future use. In light of these facts, I wrote the Committee on House Oversight to report on these discoveries and to seek direction on the future release of information. At this time, I am awaiting further information from the Committee on House Oversight. I anticipate this matter to be resolved in the near future based on their further instructions.
 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Another impact of this discovery has been a legal review of the statutory authorization or requirement for such payroll certifications to be made publicly available at the LRC. This is an issue also being addressed by the Committee on House Oversight. I appreciate the question regarding if resources are now available to make these files available to the public. Resources are available to do this task once policy and procedures are clearly determined.

    Questions. The Castle Amendment requires mass-mail reporting in the quarterly Statement of Disbursements. I notice that you are counting January 1 and 2 as part of the 4th quarter. In which quarterly report will mailings posted on January 1 or 2 be reported?

    Response. Per the remainder dated January 9, 1998 as directed by the Committee on House Oversight, ''Member offices are reminded that their completed quarterly Mass Mail Reporting Form, covering the mass mail sent during the period of October 1, 1997 through January 2, 1998'' should be submitted for inclusion in the 4th quarter (December '97) Statement of Disbursements for the House.

    Mr. EAGEN. Thank you.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Fazio.

    Just a small point of clarification for the record. As Mr. Fazio was complimenting you on your performance and comparing you less than favorably to your predecessor, I just wanted to make sure that the record is clear that he meant the initial person who held that position, as opposed to your immediate predecessor, former acting director——
 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FAZIO. Absolutely. Jeff is smiling in the back row. He knew who I meant.

    Mr. WALSH. I know he did. I want to make sure, because the record did not show him smiling.

    Now I would offer the opportunity to ask questions to Mr. Hoyer, our newest member. Welcome.

    Mr. HOYER. Thank you.

    Mr. WALSH. Delighted to have you. You have big shoes to fill with Ms. Kaptur. And I am sure she has got other things to do now, too. So we are glad to have you.

    Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join the subcommittee. I apologize for being late.

    Mr. WALSH. It is a bad precedent for our subcommittee.


    Mr. HOYER. Right. I understand that. Mr. Porter had a hearing contemporaneously with this, and I had to be there.
 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I do not have any questions because I was late and because I just joined the subcommittee last night. But, obviously, as you know, as a member of the House Oversight Committee, we spend a lot of time with the Administrator and with the other Officers of the House. And I will look forward, as Mr. Fazio has done.

    Mr. Fazio, as all of us know, is leaving. He is going to be a tremendous loss to the House, as an institution, above and beyond the loss to his District and to the State of California and to the Nation in terms of policy and, from our party standpoint, the leadership of our party.

    But in this context, his contribution as chairman of this committee and as the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee in the last Congress has brought an extraordinary amount of devotion to this institution and to the membership and the employees of this institution. And I am pleased to be serving with him in his last year on this committee, and it will be a real loss to us when he leaves. But I want to share his view.

    I had some concern which was alleviated when he went from acting to permanent, not because of the individual but because I was concerned about the partisanship that it might imply. And I have unrestrained trust and faith in his judgment, and he assured me that Mr. Eagen was the kind of guy we need as members of the House Oversight Committee. And I have concluded, as I thought I would, that he was absolutely correct.

    But the professionalization of the staff that does ministerial duties in this House is absolutely critical for us to follow through on, Democrats and Republicans, because it is not a partisan issue. When we did not do that, it did not serve the institution well, much less the interest of either party. And I think we are moving in the right direction. And I congratulate Mr. Fazio and Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Gephardt and others who were involved in this effort. And I look forward to serving on the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. We are delighted to have you. We are very much aware of your involvement in issues as related to the legislative branch. We know you represent many, many of these folks. And I am quite sure you will do a great job representing their views here.

    Tom, I believe I asked you if you have any questions.

    Mr. LATHAM. I would also say I look forward to this final year with Vic. We also serve on the Ag. Approps. subcommittee with the chairman here also and Frank Sinatra.

    Mr. WALSH. Legislative and agriculture.

    Mr. LATHAM. I cannot help it.

    Mr. SERRANO. Do you realize that I could put in a bill that finds a cure for AIDS and I will still be remembered for that?

    Mr. LATHAM. That is right, and for the 22 votes that day.

    But I do think there will be a great loss institutionally here with Vic going. And I share his real concern as far as reimbursement of the vouchers. I think it is apparent that, as far as Members' reimbursement, it is done much better. I mean, I have not had my credit card rejected lately like I did before.

 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    But I still have real concerns about reimbursement of staff. It does not seem to be that that is handled as quickly as it is for Members. And I know my chief of staff is in the District and comes back and forth on a monthly basis and has experienced real difficulties as far as getting reimbursement on a timely basis. So I think that there has been great improvement, but it is still a real concern to me.

    Mr. EAGEN. Mr. Latham, let me just comment very quickly. Someone suggested to me the other day, when we are looking at some of the procedures in the organization, that it is kind of like an onion, you keep peeling, and you get 20 layers down, then you start crying.

    When it comes to that kind of thing, you are probably referring most directly to reimbursement for a piece of equipment she may have bought back in the District or things like that. I think it is an area that requires some attention and we are giving some attention to.

    Mr. LATHAM. And travel reimbursement has been a real concern.

    Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, if I may, very briefly, I, too, want to emphasize how important it has been for us to begin to see a change in the reimbursement procedure. It was embarrassing a few times at Amtrak to be turned down for my credit card. Of course, that is because I forgot and gave them my own personal one. But we got that straightened out.
 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    But when somebody calls you up and says, guess what, you are 7 months behind, or 6 months behind, on a payment, I say, I submitted the voucher, I have nothing to do with that.

    Let me just take, since we have been through this before, Mr. Chairman, a few seconds here to say I find myself in a unique situation this year because I have to my left—not my political left, but to my left——

    Mr. HOYER. He is retiring, but I have got to answer to that.

    Mr. SERRANO. Not my political left. Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Fazio are really unique individuals that I have a lot of respect for. And it is interesting—and I say this most sincerely—one reason I respect them so much, amongst the many reasons, one in particular, is that they are not Congress-bashers, they are just the opposite, they respect the institution and they support the institution.

    And one of the reasons I accepted this assignment to the subcommittee was the work Mr. Fazio did in standing up on the floor and defending the institution and defending the staff and defending the membership. That is very important these days, because so many people would like to bring us down.

    And so this last year with Vic in Congress is a very important one for me. And I have the utmost respect for you.

 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. FAZIO. Thank you.

    Mr. SERRANO. And standing during the Committee last night was not easy, but Mr. Hoyer did it.

    He is also a person who represents many of the people that work in this institution. And it is just good to know that that is the kind of backup I have here and backup that you have for the work that we have to do.

    Mr. WALSH. It should be a good year.

    [Questions from Mr. Serrano and responses follow:]

    Question. How much has been spent from the Speaker's slush fund for ''unanticipated'' Committee investigations this Congress?

    Response. As of February 3, 1998 there has been $277,105 expended from the Reserve Fund.

    Question. In the September 15th edition of The Hill, it was reported that Mr. Goodling advised you, ''Don't let them bring the restaurant service in-house or you're going to end up in the nut house.'' Food service has certainly been a challenge over the last several years. Based on the experience with privatized food service, in your view, can a House food service contractor meet Congressional demands for price and service levels, be humane employer of long-time House food service workers, and still make a profit?
 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Response. A professional food service management company like Guest Services, Inc. can certainly meet Congressional demands for price and service levels and also treat all food service employees in a fair and just manner. The new contract with Guest Services, Inc. is structured in a way that the contractor can readily attain profitability as long as they adequately control their business. The new contract also gives the House a measure of supervision through the Quality Assurance Plan, which is outlined in the contract. With the Quality Assurance Plan, the new food service contract and Guest Services experience, we fully expect that Guest Services, Inc. will realize a profit and exceed Congressional expectations for price and service levels.


    One last question, and that is the status of the House Child Care Center. I understand our new director is here. Maybe you could introduce the director.

    Mr. EAGEN. Yes. Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, subcommittee members, Christine Ehrenberg, in the blue dress in the back row, is the new director. Natalie Gitelman, who was the longtime director of the child-care facility, retired in November, and Christine has been with us since that time.

    Mr. WALSH. Welcome. Good to have you with us. Great.

 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. EAGEN. Christine.

    Ms. EHRENBERG. In terms of numbers and things like that?

    Mr. WALSH. Location.

    Mr. EAGEN. I will speak to that.

    Mr. WALSH. That was the intent of the question.

    Mr. EAGEN. I guess my public position is, we are still looking at it. There are three elements to it. What I referred to in my testimony with regard to relocation of the X-ray facility, the primary concern has to be that we do not put a child-care facility in a place that is viewed as——

    Mr. WALSH. Checking for bombs.

    Mr. EAGEN. Right.

    Mr. WALSH. Good idea.

    Mr. EAGEN. The Sergeant at Arms is a wise man. That is the first step. And we have been working with the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police to look at the steps that are necessary to relocate that facility. But it is also an element in the contract negotiations that I also referenced with having a request for proposals on the street for a new postal services contractor, because the contractor will be the person running those trucks.
 Page 95       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Thirdly, then, is working with the child-care center. And this work has already begun. Christine and I took a tour with the Architect's folks and Bob Miley, the Superintendent of the House, to look at the space that is available. Christine is now working with the Architect's design folks to see how that space can best be set up to accommodate an improved child-care center for the House.

    Ms. EHRENBERG. Natalie is enjoying retirement and I'm enjoying being here.

    Mr. WALSH. Duly noted. Thank you.

    That, I believe, finishes the questions for this round. And we go back to you, Jay, for further introductions.

    Mr. EAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


    Referring to page 63 of the subcommittee print for salaries and expenses for the Office of the Inspector General, $4,379,000, Mr. Chairman, I request to submit the balance of page 29 for the record.

    Mr. WALSH. Without objection.

 Page 96       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. EAGEN. And I would like to introduce Mr. John Lainhart, Inspector General of the House.

    Mr. WALSH. Welcome, Mr. Lainhart.

    Mr. LAINHART. Good morning.

    Mr. WALSH. Would you like to make a brief opening statement?

    Mr. LAINHART. Very brief.

    Mr. WALSH. All right.


    Mr. LAINHART. Good morning, Chairman Walsh, Congressman Serrano, Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the House Inspector General's Fiscal Year 1999 budget request. With me is my deputy, Bob Frey.


    I would like to very briefly highlight the OIG's accomplishments from the first session of the 105th Congress, the planned audit work load for Calendar Year 1998, and the required resources to maintain that effort in Fiscal Year 1999.
 Page 97       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    During the first session of the 105th Congress, the OIG issued 15 audit reports, making a total of 189 recommendations. We also completed three major investigations involving serious procurement, financial, and management irregularities. One of these dealt with specific problems in the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer during the 104th Congress, and the resulting report was released publicly pursuant to provisions of last year's Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.

    In spring of this past year, we also implemented our Internet home page, giving the general public access to all of our audit reports.


    After several years of continued growth, the audit work load necessary to provide adequate oversight of the House seems to have leveled off, and our proposed 1998 annual audit plan contains 28 audits consisting of approximately 2,250 OIG staff days and 4,000 contractor staff days.

    Included in this total is a comparison of the wage structure and benefits in the House beauty and barber shops. Also we are in the process of completing the mainframe migration options study. Both of these studies were specifically requested by the subcommittee in last year's legislative branch appropriations report.


 Page 98       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Our Fiscal Year 1999 budget request contains the resource requirements necessary to maintain the same level of effort as anticipated in Fiscal Year 1998. The total funding requested is $4.379 million. This includes a $386,000 increase to restore funds for the Calendar Year 1997 financial statement audit, which was removed from our Fiscal Year 1998 request and instead financed through reprogramming. This restoration is necessary in order for the OIG to maintain the same level of coverage in Fiscal Year 1999 that has been provided in the past 3 fiscal years.

    Mr. Chairman, with that, I will end my brief remarks and will be willing to answer any questions you might have.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you very much. I really have no questions of Mr. Lainhart at this time, and so I will pass to Mr. Serrano.

    Mr. SERRANO. Just very briefly.


    I know that much has been said about this whole Y2K problem. I guess that the big question is, are we getting where we should be, in your opinion, after the comments you have had to make, or are we facing any major disruptions at midnight 1999/2000?

 Page 99       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LAINHART. We issued an audit report just a few months ago, actually, and issued one prior to that back in December, 1996 alerting the CAO's office of the fact that not much had been done and additional attention needed to be paid to this issue.

    Jay brought in somebody from the outside to do the initial assessment, and we cannot really answer that until we see what the assessment looks like. But, certainly, the proper actions are being taken, and the attention is being paid to it that was not being paid in the past.

    So I think except for some concerns that Jay and I share with respect to the payroll system—to make sure that we can get that taken care of in time. I think that except for those kind of items that we have already identified in our previously issued reports, we have things pretty well on track.


    Mr. SERRANO. Just one last question. Among the same issues that you are working together on, the HIR mainframe migration plan. Are you happy with the way that is beginning to turn out, also?

    Mr. LAINHART. Yes. We briefed Jay and CAO senior management yesterday on that, and I think we have come up with some real good options, that as a bottom line will avoid us having to maintain a mainframe in the House. I look on it with positive anticipation, if you will, in that there are better solutions than a mainframe.

 Page 100       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    The industry has changed, and we need to change with it into the client/server environment and, of course, the Internet and the Intranet applications that HIR has been working to move the House towards. I feel very good about that as well.

    That study should be coming to both the Oversight Committee and this subcommittee within the next couple of months. We are very close to completing it.

    Mr. SERRANO. Okay. Thank you.

    [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:]

    Question. As you know, the Financial Managers Council has strongly supported a common financial management system for the entire Legislative Branch. I know you support that concept. Is the House moving in a direction consistent with that objective?

    Response. To date, the Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council has not developed any Legislative Branch-wide standards. Therefore, the House does not have any specific guidance to follow. However, at a recent meeting of the FFS Steering Committee, the CAO recommended that the House's next step with respect to FFS be to determine the requirements for the permanent solution to its financial management system. His recommendation was unanimously endorsed by the FFS Steering Committee (which includes the co-chairs of the Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council). The FFS Steering Committee, as you are aware, was created, at the direction of the Committee on House Oversight, to help guide the House's financial management system activities, and in this role, the FFS Steering Committee is ensuring that the House's permanent solution is compatible with the needs of the entire Legislative Branch.
 Page 101       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Question. I would like to see some kind of report from you along those lines. Nothing extensive. Can you do a brief survey of this question and give us your conclusions?

    Response. As indicated in the answer to the previous question, the House is moving in the right direction, and the FFS Steering Committee is uniquely positioned to ensure that the House's permanent solution is compatible with the needs of the entire Legislative Branch. In addition to being members of the FFS Steering Committee, the OIG and our contractor, are providing continuous system development life cycle management advisory services to the CAO with respect to both the existing FFS and permanent solution efforts. As such, we look forward to working with this Subcommittee, in conjunction with the Committee on House Oversight, as the House moves ahead with its permanent financial management system solution, and will be glad to provide you with any information that you should need.

    Mr. WALSH. Mr. Fazio.


    Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I noticed John responding without speaking during some of the questions I was asking Jay, and I wondered if you might want to comment on the financial management system and its progress from your perspective. I think you made a number of recommendations over time. Are we getting where we want to go?

    Mr. LAINHART. Well, I think our problem is that until we got Jay and Frank on board, we had a little bit of stagnation there. Now that we have both Jay and Frank on board, it is a different world; it really is.
 Page 102       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In addition to Frank, he has brought on a project manager that has the technical background as well as the accounting background, and I believe that things are progressing slower than we all would like, but they are progressing.

    For example, as you recall on the House Oversight Committee, when the approval was given for the implementation of the new system, there were 10 items that still needed to be completed for phase two. Currently, four of those tasks have been completed. And, of course, the prior permanent CAO had promised that those would be completed within a month, and that is a few years ago now. We still have six tasks left, but they are being worked on vigorously by the Finance office, and it is anticipated that by the end of this summer those should be completed.

    In addition, other tasks dealing with stabilization of the system have been addressed and are being worked on at the same time. So we are working in parallel on both efforts. It is being worked on, and I think that there are major improvements there that will be completed, at the end of this summer.

    In addition, as Jay mentioned in his statement, the identification of the permanent solution, if you will, as opposed to this interim solution, is being addressed by the CAO's team, and I think that is definitely the right move to make. We should be able to look towards the new millennium with a new system in mind.

    Mr. FAZIO. Are you providing any additional input to that team? Are you providing oversight?

 Page 103       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LAINHART. We provide free consulting—that is probably the best way to describe it. It is out of my budget, you know, but we provide both my staff—I have one person that works on it, and then Price Waterhouse is continuing in a software development life cycle type of contract, which provides participation by reviewing.

    Mr. FAZIO. I don't want to create any nervousness at Price Waterhouse, but let me ask generally, are we continuing to work with one outside accounting firm to do most of this work, or are we broadening our services rendered by the various people in the merging private sector?

    Mr. LAINHART. That is a hard question to answer right now.

    Mr. FAZIO. Pretty soon there will be one accounting firm if it keeps up.

    Mr. LAINHART. That is right. Right now, in fact, on board, we have three CPA firms working for us.

    Mr. FAZIO. That is good.

    Mr. LAINHART. In addition, we had a fourth one working for us, I guess, last year. We compete the contracts using the GAO task order contract. There are five CPA firms working on it, and we have had four out of the five working for us.

    Each one really has done a major audit. I can cite them for you, if you will. But, of course, it was a lot better before Coopers and Price Waterhouse agreed to their merger and KPMG and Ernst & Young agreed to their merger. So we are going down to smaller numbers competing for our contracts.
 Page 104       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FAZIO. I still think it is important that we have relations with all of them. It is good for competition. It is also good that they know the people in our systems here.

    Mr. LAINHART. And, in fact, before we do an advertisement of a new task order, I personally call each one of the partners that are responsible for the GAO task order contract to alert them to the fact that it is coming out and encouraging them to bid on it. And we have had all five bid as well.


    Mr. FAZIO. I understand there is a new disbursement procedure being implemented for Member mass mailings. Is this one of your recommendations? I understood it had been done in part at your request.

    Mr. EAGEN. Obligation of mass mailings.

    Mr. LAINHART. The obligation of mass mailings, yes, sir, that is correct. That is one of our recommendations, and it deals with the major problem that we have with getting a clean opinion for the House. It deals with mass mailings that go to USPS, and we get the reports from USPS back sometimes 2 years late. So there is no way to anticipate that expense, and it really does affect the opinion for the House.

    We made a recommendation that if Members could go ahead and obligate for that, then we could get around that problem. It doesn't have to be 100 percent accurate, but if we can get closer and have a better number in our accounts, when the financial statement audit is performed, then we will get closer to a clean opinion.
 Page 105       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FAZIO. Is it a new form that the Members will be required to fill out?

    Mr. LAINHART. I believe so.

    Mr. FAZIO. Is there going to be, if you are going to use that rationale in the mass mailing area, any effort to implement that same concept in other areas such as rent, leased cars, equipment purchases? Because I think we have had similar problems, haven't we, in those areas?

    Mr. LAINHART. They are small by comparison. And, in fact, there have been things put in place within finance that reduce the problems in these areas. For example, on the leases, we do have records of the leases, so now we have those accrued in the financial statements.

    The equipment, the new fixed asset system certainly will help there, but it is small by comparison and not necessarily going to interfere with the opinion.

    Mr. FAZIO. Is it your opinion that didn't prevent the clean opinion?

    Mr. LAINHART. No, that is correct. The mass mailing was the one single largest issue. There are some others, too, and they do accumulate but mass mailing was the biggest issue.
 Page 106       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FAZIO. Of course, this was an area where Members occasionally went over their accounts, and we have had some unfortunate personal situations there, unfortunate press. Hopefully this will all be managed more effectively, and this kind of inadequacy or inaccuracy won't be happening anymore.

    Mr. LAINHART. Our objective really isn't to worry about the opinion, if you will. Our objective is to give Members better information so they can make better decisions on their own. And that is the purpose behind it, exactly.

    Mr. EAGEN. The process is integrated with the franking approval form that had been existing. So the Franking Commission, once they process and make sure the mailing meets those standards, then passes it on to the Postal Operations Office, and it is input in the FFS system as an obligation against the Member's account.

    Mr. FAZIO. Makes sense. Hopefully Members will have no excuse if they can't keep track at this point. They are being reminded, in fact, by the system.

    Mr. LAINHART. It will be another tool.

    Mr. EAGEN. That is right.

    Mr. FAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Vic.
 Page 107       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. Hoyer.

    Mr. HOYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


    John, one of your reports, which goes back to July 18, 1995, deals with the lack of sound personnel policies. What have you been doing in your office with reference to overseeing the implementation of the personnel policies?

    Mr. LAINHART. We haven't done any additional work specifically tailored towards that. Whenever we go into an entity to do an audit, we look at the associated personnel staffing, position descriptions, etc. to see if they are maintained, the ratings are being performed, that kind of thing. So we do do it on an individual audit basis. We make recommendations, like we did in HIR. For example, the discussion earlier about the salary levels in HIR, we looked at that in our report on HIR management and recommended that the salary levels be looked at because we felt that they were too low.

    We look at the implementation of the policies and procedures in each area and make recommendations for less staff, additional staff or reorganizations as appropriate.

    Mr. HOYER. In addition to the levels of staffing, and the compensation for staffing and, therefore, the competitiveness which Vic, and I am sure Jim and the whole committee have talked about, I am sure, through the years so that we can be competitive and keep professional personnel, have you looked at the implementation of procedures for terminating employees, in particular as it relates to terminations for-cause, in the pursuit of having professional employees, as opposed to partisan employees? Have you looked at any of that?
 Page 108       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LAINHART. No, we have not looked at that.

    Mr. HOYER. Would that be within your purview, do you think, John?

    Mr. LAINHART. In fact, we have an audit in our proposed plan to look at benefits and personnel-related issues like that. So we do have it included, but we haven't initiated one of those audits yet.

    Mr. HOYER. As you know, from our work on the House Oversight Committee, in my discussions with Mr. Thomas when Vic was on there, obviously in 1994 when we had a change, there was going to be a transition period, and that was understandable. It would have been the same if it had been us coming in. It just happens.

    We are now essentially beyond that, and I think we are working much more closely on making the system work. In that regard, we struggled when we were in control, and during the 104th Congress, Speaker Gingrich and others, struggled with how do you professionalize a personnel system, dealing with ministerial duties, not policy-related duties, so that the employees feel that they are working as professionals for an organization, i.e., the House, as opposed to working for either party?

    Mr. Serrano, I understand, asked some questions earlier. I am sorry that I missed Robin Carle's testimony. I was concerned by the five employees who were fired just recently, which appears not to have been for cause. It appears that it was taken as a reorganization, but, in fact, it is my understanding that there is an advertisement for at least two very similar positions to be filled. I am not sure whether the employees who were let go are going to be considered for that job. I apologize for missing the questions.
 Page 109       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    It seems to me we need to look at that from both parties' standpoint, because we are reaching an agreement now that this is not a partisan issue. It serves both parties' interests and the institution's interest to have a professional cadre.

    Mr. Chairman, I might pursue that with Mr. Lainhart maybe in terms of a request that we will give him either from House Oversight or from this committee so that we can see how our personnel system is developing and how it is being implemented and whether or not, in fact, we are reaching the objectives of that professionalization of the nonpolicy staff.

    Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you.

    I guess that concludes Mr. Lainhart's testimony and questions. Thank you very much, John, for that.

    And, Jay, we will go back to you to wrap up.


    Mr. EAGEN. Referring to pages 64 through 65 of the Subcommittee Print for salaries and expenses of the Office of the General Counsel, $840,000; pages 66 through 67 of the Subcommittee Print, the Office of the Chaplain, $136,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the Parliamentarian, including the Parliamentarian, Compilation of the Precedents, $2,000 for preparing the Digest of Rules, $1,106,000; for salaries and expenses for the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, $1,957,000; for salaries and expenses for the Office of the Legislative Counsel, $4,980,000; for salaries and expenses for the Corrections Calendar Office, $810,000; and for salaries and expenses for other authorized employees, $191,000.
 Page 110       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. Chairman, I request that pages 30 through 36 be included in the record, and I would like to note that the general counsel, the law revision counsel and the legislative counsel are here in the room to answer any questions that the subcommittee might have.

    Mr. WALSH. Those pages are admitted into the record without objection. We will also include biographies of the three new heads of the legal offices.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."


    Bar Admissions: District of Columbia, Maryland, New York, and various federal courts.


    7/97–Present.—General Counsel. Acting General Counsel (6/96–6/97). Deputy General Counsel (9/95–5/96). Office of General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives. 219 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. (202) 225–9700.

    7/91–9/95.—Litigation Counsel. Office of Thrift Supervision. 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552.

 Page 111       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    2/86–4/91.—General Counsel. Metropolitan Police Department. Room 4215, 300 Indiana Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001.

    12/81–2/86, 6/75–5/79.—Sole Practitioner (civil and criminal litigation). Washington, DC.

    5/79–12/81.—Associate. Hirschkop & Grad, P.C., 108 N. Columbus Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22313.


    1988–Present.—Civil Division Rules Committee of the Superior Court.

    1987–Present.—Juvenile Rules Advisory Subcommittee of the Family Division Rules Committee of the Superior Court.

    1988–1991.—Volunteer Civil II Mediator. D.C. Superior Court's Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Program; participated in Settlement Week 1988–1990.

    1989–1992.—Ad Hoc Committee on Drugs and the Criminal Justice System, American Bar Association Section of Criminal Justice.

    1988–1991.—Vice Chair. Committee on Criminal Law and the Administrative Process, American Bar Association Section of Administrative Law.
 Page 112       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    1987–1989.—Special Committee on the Application of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to Government Lawyers of the District of Columbia Bar.

    1981–1985.—Disciplinary Hearing Committee of the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility.

    1/89–Present.—Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Police Boys and Girls Club.


    The American University, Washington College of Law. J.S. 1974. Yale University. B.A. 1971. Wellesley College (67–69).


    Mr. Miller was appointed the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives in November 1997. He has been with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel since October 1975, as an assistant counsel until July 1994, and as Deputy Law Revision Counsel after that date.

    From June 1972 until October 1975, he was an assistant counsel with the Office of the General Counsel of the United States General Accounting Office.

 Page 113       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    He received a degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors with a major in economics from the University of Cincinnati in June 1969.

    He received a degree of Juris Doctor With Honors from the George Washington University in June 1972.

    He was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1972, and is a member of the Virginia State Bar.

    Mr. Miller is married to Cynthia H. Turner. They have a son and a daughter, and live in Arlington, Virginia.


    Mr. Barrow was born in Savannah, Georgia, on December 26, 1942. He attended the Gilman School in Baltimore, Maryland from 1955 until he graduated in 1961. After obtaining a BA from Yale University in Political Science in 1965, he attended Harvard Law School where he was awarded a JD in 1968. Mr. Barrow was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 1968 and began employment with the Office of the Legislative Counsel in that same year.

    From 1968 through 1969, Mr. Barrow was a Law Assistant in the Office of Legislative Counsel where he drafted private bills, constitutional amendments, concurrent resolutions and miscellaneous bills for individual members of the House of Representatives.

 Page 114       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    In 1969, he was appointed Assistant Counsel and drafted legislation involving public lands, water resources, energy law, historic preservation, clean air, solid waste disposal, toxic substances, criminal law, foreign assistance, war powers, mining and mineral issues, income and estate taxes, pension reform, and numerous other subjects.

    In 1993, Mr. Barrow was appointed Deputy Legislative. In this position, he continued to draft legislation and also assisted the Legislative Counsel with management of the Office. On August 1, 1997, the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, appointed Mr. Barrow as Legislative Counsel to the United States House of Representatives with statutory responsibility for management of the Office of the Legislative Counsel.

    Mr. Barrow is married to Giulia Barrow. They have three children: Isabel Barrow (age 20), Pope Barrow (age 15), and Rebecca Barrow (age 6). Mr. Barrow is an active whitewater kayaker who has explored whitewater rivers throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Chile.
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. WALSH. Do any of the Members have any questions of any of those other officers?


    Mr. FAZIO. I wondered if I could just get a little bit more information about the product of Corrections Calendar Office. This is one that has always intrigued me. I realize it is a bipartisan office, but I still question what it does, which I know can be troublesome when you don't know the answer to your question.
 Page 115       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Mr. EAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I have to—Mr. Fazio, I would have to reply for the record. We don't have a representative of the Corrections Calendar Office here with us today.

    Mr. FAZIO. All right. I would be interested in that response.

    Mr. WALSH. If you like, we will submit that for the record and make sure it is responded to in a prompt manner.

    Mr. FAZIO. All right.

    [The information follows:]

    Question: Could we get a little more information about the product of Corrections Calendar Office. What does this office do?

    Response. This office is used by the Speaker, Minority Leader and other Leadership offices to assist in management of business related to the Corrections Calendar and other leadership priorities. See attached for more detailed information.
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. WALSH. Any other questions?
 Page 116       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Hearing none, if I may, I see Dr. Eisold has joined us, the Attending Physician.

    Doctor, would you like to come up to the table and join us briefly? Do you have any comments you would like to make? It is good to have you with us today.

    Dr. EISOLD. Nice to be here Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WALSH. You are an integral part of the legislative branch of government, providing many services.

    Dr. EISOLD. Thank you Sir. I am here with my assistant Robert Burg, and I really don't have any prepared statement to make, but I would be happy to respond to questions from the committee.

    Mr. WALSH. Well, let me just again welcome you here.

    The Attending Physician is responsible for the medical care of our pages, emergency care and immunizations for Capitol Police, and emergency care for the millions of visitors who tour the capitol complex, as well as providing emergency and other medical care for the staff and Members of the House and Senate.

 Page 117       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    One question that you may or may not be prepared to respond to, the Sergeant at Arms talked about evacuation. I believe Congressman Serrano asked about evacuation and so forth. Could you give us your thoughts on dealing with either chemical or biological threat to the Capitol and what procedures you would be prepared to take?


    Dr. EISOLD. My staff is fully trained and equipped to respond to chemical casualties or biological events in concert with the Capitol Police and various outside resources from the local area, or even from afar. That would include threat identification, triage, treatment, potentially decontamination and evacuation.

    I think that in view of the sensitivity of the process and the security implications, I would prefer to perhaps at your convenience give you a briefing in my spaces and review the equipment and our procedures in detail at that time, or with any members of the committee.

    Mr. WALSH. Sure. If any of the Members would be interested in witnessing that, I would welcome them and maybe we can go together.

    Can you comment on how many people you could deal with in an event?

    Dr. EISOLD. It varies on how much backup is requested. I think it would depend upon the threat assessment at the time as to how many outside resources you might bring in, so that our capabilities, as first responders would be augmented in the preparation for the State of the Union or a joint session. The exact numbers of what we could take care of would probably be better discussed at another time.
 Page 118       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. All right. Fair enough.

    Are there any other questions of Dr. Eisold?

    No questions.

    All right. Thank you very much.

    Dr. EISOLD. Thank you.

    Mr. HOYER. Thanks.

    Mr. WALSH. Yes.

    Mr. SERRANO. A lot of thanks.

    Dr. EISOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


    Mr. EAGEN. Mr. Chairman, for allowances and expenses as authorized by House resolution or law, $136,806,000 for the following sub-accounts which will be individually presented and discussed: Supplies and materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims; official mail, non-Member; government contributions; and miscellaneous items.
 Page 119       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    For supplies, materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims, $2,706,000; for official mail for committees, leadership offices and administrative offices of the House, $500,000; for government contributions, $132,949,000; for miscellaneous items, $651,000.

    And, Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the record at this time a table reflecting the breakdown of the House Child Care Center fiscal year 1999 budget estimate. This request is for salaries and expenses in the amount of $580,000, and I request that pages 37 through 42 be submitted for the record.

    Mr. WALSH. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."


    Mr. EAGEN. Mr. Chairman, for salaries and expenses, for the Joint Committee on Taxation, $6,018,000; for the Office of the Attending Physician, $1,383,000; for statements of appropriations, $30,000. And I request that the balance of pages 43 through 45 be submitted for the record.

    Mr. WALSH. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]
 Page 120       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."


    Mr. EAGEN. That concludes my presentation on the House of Representatives fiscal year 1999 budget, and I will be available to assist the committee with any additional information that it may need.

    Mr. WALSH. Very good. Thank you very much for your presentation and your responses to the questions. We have all submitted a number of questions for the record. We hope you would give us a prompt response to those.

    [A question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. EAGEN. Yes, sir.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you, too, for your testimony today. You are excused.



 Page 121       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  






    Mr. WALSH. Now we will take up the budget submission of the Office of Compliance. This Office was established by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. We have with us today the Executive Director, Mrs. R. (Ricky) Gaull Silberman, and some of her staff members. Welcome.

    There is also a five-member part-time Board of Directors. The Chairman of the Board is Mr. Glen Nager; is that correct?

    Mr. NAGER. Nager.

    Mr. WALSH. Nager. Welcome, Mr. Nager.

    Mr. NAGER. Thank you.
 Page 122       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. A Washington attorney-at-law.

    The fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill provided $2,479,000 to this Office. The budget before us is $2,286,000, a reduction of $193,000. The staffing level is 19 full-time equivalent positions. That remains unchanged.

    Does Chairman Nager have a statement? Your prepared testimony has been given to the committee, and you may feel free to summarize. Welcome, sir.


    Mr. NAGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    As Chair of the Board, I am honored to be here today to join Mrs. Silberman in presenting the testimony of the Office concerning the 1999 budget. I want to take this time just to thank the staff and the committee, and particularly Ed Lombard and Tom Martin, who have provided enormous assistance to us in making the work that our office has done over the first 2 years possible, as well as in limiting the appropriations that we have requested.

    Much has happened since the act was passed in 1995. The provisions of the act have now all taken effect. The Board has approved the necessary regulations. The alternative dispute resolution process is up and running. The OSHA and ADA inspections have been completed; the reports required by the statute issued; and the first adjudications by hearing officers have been completed, reviewed by the Board and decisions issued.
 Page 123       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    This record of the Office is a result of the very hard work of the four statutory officers and the staff that works for them. I would just briefly like to introduce them if the chairman will allow.

    Mr. WALSH. Please, feel free.

    Mr. NAGER. Jim Stephens is the Deputy Executive Director for the House, and Pam Talkin is the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate. Beth Brown is our budget officer. And I recently appointed a new general counsel to the Office of Compliance, Gary Green, who is over there. Mr. Green brings to the Board and the Office and the regulated community an enormous amount of knowledge, both in regulatory compliance and administration of the law. We look forward to his contributions.

    Mrs. Silberman is, by statute, responsible for preparation and submission of the budget, and I will turn it over to her, with the chairman's permission, to present that.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. WALSH. Please. Welcome.


    Ms. SILBERMAN. Thank you.
 Page 124       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to be back here again to present the Office's 1999 budget request. Although in our previous two testimonies we have had to rely on conjecture, on guesstimates, if you will, because we had no track record and no model, this year's submission is based on 2 years' experience with what our actual workload is and what it costs to do the job efficiently and effectively.

    We are requesting $2.286 million for fiscal year 1999, which is a 7 percent decrease from our fiscal year 1998 appropriation. And that is based on the experience, as well as our analysis and evaluation of the programs of the Office.

    As detailed in our submission, the Office's core function, and one which Members of this committee have questioned me about in the past, is the strictly confidential alternative dispute resolution system, which is based on the principle that an informed regulated community and early resolutions of disputes is most cost-effective and best for employees and employing offices. To that end, the Office has provided a comprehensive program of education and information, including monthly briefings for House employing offices, quarterly newsletters which are sent to all legislative branch employees, as well as a comprehensive manual for employing offices on rights and responsibilities under the Congressional Accountability Act.

    We have controlled the costs of this essential function and effected considerable savings by taking a cue from this committee in establishing good working relationships with the Government Printing Office, which does all of our publications now.

    The reports attached to this submission for calendar years 1996 and 1997 on employee use of the Office, which are required under section 301(h) of the Act, demonstrate the efficiency and the effectiveness of the counseling and mediation processes which Congress provided legislative branch employees in the CAA. Two full-time counselors on staff have answered more than 3,000 inquiries and given informal advice and information on the procedures of the Office and the rights and protections and responsibilities afforded under the CAA to both employees and employing offices. It is interesting that of the nearly 1,500 employees, they have broken down as pretty much half employing offices, half employees. And, of the 1,500 employees who have contacted the Office over the past 2 years, 250 have filed formal requests for counseling.
 Page 125       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Now, after such a request is filed, our counselors evaluate the alleged violation, advise the employee of his or her rights and responsibilities under the CAA and facilitate dispute resolution. The fact that the vast majority of employees who contact our office do not initiate formal proceedings is testimony to the effectiveness of these counselors. The mediation program has proved similarly effective and cost-efficient.

    Early on, we decided that the mediation function was best outsourced to recognized, experienced, independent mediators, and that is because we wanted to be able to use people as needed. And it has worked out to be extremely cost-efficient and effective. These mediations, there have been 183 requests for mediation, have taken place under Office of Compliance auspices, with mediators from such organizations as the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the Center for Dispute Settlement and JAMS/Endispute, and we have a very high rate of settlement.

    However, we want to try and do even better, and we are now in the process of ascertaining what conditions create the most favorable environment for settlement. One of the things that we are trying to encourage, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, is that principals and decisionmakers attend mediations. Up until now that has been kind of hard. The lawyers get involved very early, and they want to control the mediation process. And we think that is not cost-efficient, and that is not the best way to have early settlements. So we are looking into ways that we can ensure that principals and, more importantly, decisionmakers are present at the mediation so that we can have an even better rate of settlement.

    Let me close just very quickly by telling you about a letter that I received from an employee. She wrote that the Office of Compliance counselor had, and I quote, ''saved her life and sanity,'' and that because of the existence of our Office, the problem had been solved, her employer had participated in the mediation, and she remains happily and productively on the job.
 Page 126       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we have resolved scores of cases, and each of these represents the realization of the promise of the CAA, and I can think of no better illustration of the good work of this Office. I will be delighted to answer or try to answer whatever questions you have.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you both very much for your testimony. That certainly is the kind of result we would love to see as often as possible, and congratulations to you for that result.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."


    Mr. WALSH. The primary duties of the Office of Compliance are to resolve employee grievances and unfair labor practice complaints, conduct health and safety inspections of the legislative branch, write regulations, provide education and information to the agencies and employees. You also make awards and settlements.

    Now that you have had almost 2 years of experience in enforcing the Congressional Accountability Act, how do you think we are doing? How are we stacking up to these laws and regulations?

    Ms. SILBERMAN. I think we are all doing very well. I think the Congress is doing very well. One of the reasons why I talked about the number of requests for information and how evenly balanced those numbers are is that we are finding that the congressional employer is seeking information in the way that private sector employers do and Federal-sector employers do, and we are providing that information, and as a result we are getting relatively few complaints.
 Page 127       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In the safety and health area, in the ADA area, the Congress, I believe, was very wise in setting up a system whereby, for instance, under OSHA and ADA, we do inspections. We issue a report. The first report is really basically what the state of the play is, what needs to be addressed, and now we are in the process of beginning the mandatory inspection, in which we will see how well the Architect of the Capitol and other responsible employing offices are doing in terms of correcting problems that were seen in the first report. And we are finding that they are doing pretty well.

    So I would give the Congress a good grade.

    Mr. WALSH. What grade would that be?

    Mr. HOYER. A good one.

    Ms. SILBERMAN. A good one, a really good grade, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WALSH. Better than a C?

    Ms. SILBERMAN. Oh, absolutely better than a C.


    Mr. WALSH. We have provided the Architect with virtually every dollar amount that he has asked for to implement the ADA. How would you say the congressional buildings stand in compliance with that legislation, with the ADA?
 Page 128       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. SILBERMAN. To follow up on my last answer, there seem to be three areas that needed to be addressed that came out of our first inspection, and it was the accessibility of bathrooms, elevators and entrances. We have just now begun the follow-up mandatory inspection, and we have found that renovations are under way.

    There has been a vast improvement in something that is enormously important, and that is signage. The fact is that people with disabilities don't have to make their way around the Capitol by using bread crumbs, as some of the rest of us have in the past. This is an easy place to get lost in. But the general public, as well as the public of people with disabilities, I think, are benefiting from a greatly improved signage.

    It is hard for me to give you a definitive answer because many of these renovations are now in place, but I know that our new general counsel has met with the Architect of the Capitol and in both—in areas of OSHA, as well as ADA—he is extremely cooperative. We are, again, making improvements in getting the word down from the top to the supervisors, who often are the people that have to really implement these rules and regulations.


    Mr. WALSH. According to our records, there were 158 cases of mediation during 1997, plus 10 that were pending at the beginning of the year. Then you show 116 closed and 32 pending at the end of this year. Why would your pending cases be so much higher this year? Is it just a function of the number of cases that you dealt with in 1997?

 Page 129       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Ms. SILBERMAN. No. It is actually a function of when those cases came in. There is a period of time that it takes for the counseling request to be filed, for the counseling to take place, for mediation to be scheduled. And actually, that 32 is now down to 11. The law is set up so that it takes a certain amount of time to get through these things, and they may have been and probably were filed towards the end of the year.

    Mr. WALSH. I see.

    Ms. SILBERMAN. It is always an ongoing statistic. It is very hard to read our statistics with any degree of understanding, without understanding the flow of the process.

    Mr. WALSH. But they are down to 11 now?

    Ms. SILBERMAN. Yes.

    Mr. WALSH. Great. A large number of the cases have gone to district court, 57 of them. That seems pretty high.

    Ms. SILBERMAN. That's a perfect example of how statistics can be misleading. As you know, cases filed under the Congressional Accountability Act are filed by individuals, and the vast majority of those 57 cases were filed by one group of individuals, in the Architect of the Capitol. It was the result of one employment policy.

    It is a group of cases that if we kept our statistics differently, would be considered only one. We also have two, I believe it is two, individuals who have filed multiple claims, which is also quite normal under the administration of these laws.
 Page 130       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    So it is 57 cases. I would say it probably represents no more than 10.

    Mr. WALSH. Individuals?

    Ms. SILBERMAN. In terms of individual actions, policies, problems.


    Mr. WALSH. I see.

    Your budget request is down 7 percent, which is to be commended.

    Ms. SILBERMAN. Thank you.

    Mr. WALSH. How did you do that?

    Ms. SILBERMAN. Well, a lot of people, I guess, get the credit for that. The Congress, as I said, is doing very well in complying. Our budget request is based on really taking a hard look at our program and, as I said earlier, and looking at the aspects of the program which cost the most money and trying to see how we can bring those costs down, and I am hoping that we will be able to bring the mediation costs down, at least per mediation, by having more effective mediation.

 Page 131       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Three of our statutory appointees together represent over 30 years experience at the head of analogous government agencies, and I would venture to say that we have applied our expertise and experience in this area in keeping costs down. And our staff has been simply terrific. And one of the things that we did was we have a very lean staff, and our people really function as utility infielders; they fulfill more than one function.

     And I think that particular credit needs to go to our support staff who are so often the unsung heroes in any operation. Our support staff basically perform multiple functions, and in that way we are able to keep our personnel costs down. For example, we have one administrative assistant who also acts as a hearing clerk for the hearing officers.

    And last, but certainly not least, we have Beth Brown, our superb administrative officer, who, with her green eye shade and the help of people on your committee, keeps us on the straight and narrow.

    So we are delighted to be able to come up with a 7 percent decrease, Mr. Chairman. Hope to do better next year.

    Mr. WALSH. We will remind you of that.

    Ms. SILBERMAN. You probably will. I knew the minute I said that.


 Page 132       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. WALSH. The effort is appreciated. It helps us. We have a real challenge.

    Lastly, you occupy space at the Library of Congress. Do you reimburse them for that space? Are there any other administrative costs? If you do, could you provide those to us?

    Ms. SILBERMAN. We certainly will provide the costs to you.

    [The information follows:]

    The total cost of our interagency agreement with the Library for the current fiscal year is $48,805. This includes the following services: disbursing, payroll (via the National Finance Center), security, cleaning, mail, and manual labor. Costs are broken down as follows:

Table 5

    Ms. SILBERMAN. We do not reimburse them for the space per se. We do have what Beth tells me is a cross-serving contract in which they supply for us budget and personnel, support services, as well as security, cleaning and the rest of it. I must say that we are very happy with the situation. It is working very well, and the only time we have a little problem is that there is a certain uncertainty with respect to the permanence of the arrangement.

    Mr. WALSH. The physical location?

    Ms. SILBERMAN. Yes, exactly. And, you know, that is the way it was set up.
 Page 133       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. Staff informs me that we are trying to be helpful to you there.

    Ms. SILBERMAN. They are, as always, very helpful.

    Mr. WALSH. Good. Thank you. Any other questions?

    Mr. Serrano.


    Mr. SERRANO. Just very briefly, you were very happy to announce, if I heard you correctly, there are very few complaints; it is a low number?

    Ms. SILBERMAN. I think it is a relatively low number.

    Mr. SERRANO. Is that related, do you think, to the fact that, as you also said, people were calling in kind of a preventive way to get information on how to deal with situations? It is not that there is a lack of information——

    Ms. SILBERMAN. No.

    Mr. SERRANO [continuing]. Of where the people could go?

 Page 134       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Ms. SILBERMAN. No, absolutely not. As I have testified before, you know, we send out brochures to the residences of every employee. We publish a quarterly newsletter, which I hope that you all get a chance to see. You know, we supply constant information, and our phones are ringing. I mean, it is not that we are not supplying that information. We do briefings.

    I think the system is just working well, I really do, Mr. Serrano. It was predicated to be front-loaded on information, to have a mechanism whereby you would have early resolution of disputes. The whole mediation program itself is a model that the Congress has provided itself and that most Federal agencies don't have, and most private sector firms don't have.

    The reason that I took this job to begin with is that I am a firm believer in the importance of mediation in these kinds of disputes, and we are proving the point.

    Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. I have no further questions.

    Mr. WALSH. Mr. Fazio.


    Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

    I wondered if we had any way of gauging the amount of media interest in the work of your group? Do you have any contacts? I notice you keep thorough records on all sorts of contacts with you.
 Page 135       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. SILBERMAN. From my experience, it has been relatively little.

    Mr. FAZIO. I think initially there was a great deal of interest——

    Ms. SILBERMAN. Yes.

    Mr. FAZIO [continuing]. On the part of the media.

    Ms. SILBERMAN. Initially there was, but lately it has been less.

    Mr. FAZIO. I guess that relates probably to the fact that things are going so well?

    Ms. SILBERMAN. I hope so. I hope so.

    Mr. FAZIO. My sense is, and I think Mr. Hoyer noted this, that really most of the problems here relate not so much to Member offices as to the institutional offices?

    Ms. SILBERMAN. That is absolutely right.

 Page 136       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. FAZIO. Do you think that is another reason why the press is not interested?

    Ms. SILBERMAN. Absolutely.

    Mr. FAZIO. Okay.

    Mr. WALSH. Are you leading the witness, Mr. Fazio?

    Ms. SILBERMAN. He is leading me exactly where I want to go, Mr. Chairman. That is just fine.

    Mr. FAZIO. I wanted to encourage her to go there.

    I don't know whether we have any press interest in this today, but I think it was frankly oversold, overblown, as a way of getting at a problem that obviously isn't as endemic as people thought about this institution. You know, I hope, because, you know, any time you have good news, it is not news. Somebody ought to come back and do a retrospective.

    Ms. SILBERMAN. We have been trying to encourage that.

    Mr. FAZIO. A feature on these things. Maybe they ought to come and see what the Office is doing.

    If anybody is here from Roll Call?
 Page 137       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. SILBERMAN. Well, in past years there has been, but I don't know that there is this year.

    Mr. FAZIO. Well, I guess we have wasted our time here. Sorry I bothered to engage you. I do have a question for the record.

    [A question from Mr. Fazio and response follows:]

    Question. Has the Office of Compliance undertaken any review of Member and Committee office compliance with provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), i.e, the process of designating Member and Committee staff as either covered or exempt from FLSA, and the keeping of time records and payment of overtime if staff are covered? If not, why not? If not, does the Compliance Board plan any type of review in the future? If not, why not?

    Response. The CAA does not authorize the Office to undertake generalized compliance investigations to determine whether employing offices correctly claim exempt status for bona fide administrative, professional, and executive employees or whether overtime work is being properly compensated. As the Board of Directors explained in adopting the substantive regulations, the CAA does not apply all the rights and protections of the FLSA to the Legislative Branch. Among those provisions not applied were the various enforcement powers exercised by the Department of Labor, including the authority under section 11 of the FLSA (29 U.S.C. §211) to conduct investigations and inspections of the workplace. Similarly, the CAA did not apply the recordkeeping provisions, although the Board has acknowledged that recordkeeping ''may well be in employers' interests both as a sound personnel practice and in order to defend against subsequent litigation.'' Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 141 Cong. Rec. S17603–04 (Daily ed. Nov. 28, 1995). Given the absence of statutory authority, the Office does not contemplate undertaking these kinds of compliance inspections or reviews suggested by the question.
 Page 138       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The Office is empowered to respond to specific employee inquiries and complaints as to employing office compliance with the FLSA and the other federal labor and employment laws made applicable under the CAA. Under the three-stage dispute resolution process, an employee has the opportunity to present for independent determination and resolution issues such as whether an employing office has properly exempted an employee under the FLSA or whether an employing office has properly paid overtime compensation.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you for your constructive comments and questions.

    Mr. Hoyer.


    Mr. HOYER. Well, I would like to join in Mr. Fazio's very cogent observations with reference to what the press is interested in and what it is not interested in, and I am enthusiastic about press-bashing right now.

    But there were a number of agendas as it related to the creation of this Office, one of which I will say cynically had little to do with institutional compliance as it had to do with elimination of the regulatory laws and the attempt to prove that if applied to the Congress, that they would be found to be unworkable.

    As I understand your testimony, it is the opposite, and that the institution is, in fact, complying with ADA, OSHA. There obviously is still a way to go. You obviously still don't have total funding, but I was pleased, and that is what Vic mentioned, when I looked at 152 formal requests for counseling, out of the 152, Mr. Chairman, only eight were from the House Members' offices and four from the Senate Members' offices. So 12, or less than 10 percent, were out of Members' offices.
 Page 139       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Of the 501, you don't have it broken down, of employee contacts for information—I can't judge that. Maybe you don't have that information, but I, like Mr. Fazio and Mr. Serrano, and I am sure Mr. Walsh and this subcommittee, am pleased, that we are finding both a willingness and, in fact, accomplishment of compliance so that our employees and those who use our facilities and who come to the center of democracy in this Nation have the full protections that are accorded to others.

    That was the premise of the adoption of this. I don't know whether there was anybody who was opposed to it. Was it unanimous or were there one or two or three?

    Mr. FAZIO. That may not reflect the true feeling.

    Mr. HOYER. Chris Shays and I worked very hard on this, and he did a lot of work. I think it is good information that we are proceeding, and, of course, the fact that there is not great press interest would imply that things are going pretty well, and good news is not news. So maybe the fact that Roll Call isn't here sends us a message as well.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. And thank you all for attending the hearing today. And all the witnesses, thank you for your patience in waiting for your turn.

    We will now adjourn for the day. The next hearing will be Tuesday, February 3rd, at 1:00 p.m., at which time we will take up the Financial Manager's Council and the Library of Congress. The meeting is adjourned.
 Page 140       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  





    Mr. WALSH. The hearing will now come to order. I would like to welcome my colleague and friend, Congressman Serrano, and all the others who have come to attend the hearing today. We will now take up the Financial Managers Council. This is a new entity that was formally recognized in the Fiscal Year 1998 appropriations bill. Section 307 of the bill authorizes the expenditure of up to $1,500 of participating agency funds to be allocated to the Council for administrative needs, and by all accounts, this has been money very well spent.

    A little background. In 1996, in consultation with the Appropriations Committees, a group of agency financial officers banded together to form the Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council. Their goal was to improve financial management throughout the legislative branch. Such an undertaking is truly needed.

    The legislative branch does not have an umbrella organization comparable to what the Office of Management and Budget provides for the executive. OMB is the President's policy and procedure arm. In the absence of that function, this subcommittee, together with our Senate counterpart, has attempted in the past to provide a limited amount of policy and procedural guidance.
 Page 141       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    For example, the legislative branch telecommunications effort was instituted under the authority enacted in the legislation appropriations bill. This came after extensive hearings and investigations that were patterned after what the executive branch was contemplating with the FTS 2000 project. Another endeavor was the committee urging the use of standardized payroll systems in consolidated administrative service centers, such as the National Finance Center.

    In the executive branch, OMB oversees the utilization and implementation of these initiatives. It has fallen to this subcommittee to be the legislative branch impetus for getting the agencies within our funding jurisdiction into these programs. It is fair to say, though, our ability to do this is limited, so we look with favor on the council's initiatives.

    I would like to welcome the Co-Chairmen of the Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council, Mr. Richard Brown of the General Accounting Office, Deputy Assistant Comptroller for Operations; and Mr. John Webster, Director of Financial Services, at the Library of Congress. As is customary, we place your biographies in the record at this point.

    [The information follows:]


Richard L. Brown

 Page 142       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. Brown is the Deputy Assistant Comptroller General for Operations and the Controller for the U.S. General Accounting Office. He began his federal career in 1967 as a Revenue Officer with the Internal Revenue Service. Before joining GAO as the Assistant Budget Officer in 1974, he served as a Budget and Management Analyst in the Navy's Strategic Systems Project Office for six years.

    Mr. Brown, a certified Government Financial Manager, was appointed GAO's Controller in 1977. He was appointed Director of the Office of General Services and Controller in 1978, having responsibility for managing and directing GAO's support operations—including facilities, property management and supplies, procurement, finance, travel, and safety and security.

    Mr. Brown is a Cum Laude graduate of Weber State College where he received a B.A. degree in 1966. He has completed post graduate work at a number of universities including the University of Maryland, the National Law Center at George Washington University, American University, Princeton and Harvard. Mr. Brown received GAO's Meritorious Service Award, and he received the rank of Meritorious Executive in both 1982 and 1987. He also received GAO's Distinguished Service Award, and in 1996, the agency's highest award, the Comptroller General's Award. Also, in 1992, he was given government-wide recognition when he received the Excellence in Administration Award sponsored by the General Services Administration.


 Page 143       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

John D. Webster


    Mr. Webster is the Director of Financial Services at the Library of Congress. He was appointed to that position in November 1989 and is responsible for budget, accounting, financial systems, and disbursing functions. During his tenure with the Library, he has received the Librarian's award for Meritorious Service for his work in improving financial management.

    Previously, Mr. Webster worked for 14 years with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in a number of positions associated with Government-wide benefits programs. His last position with OPM was Deputy Assistant Director for Financial Control and Management, with responsibility for accounting, budget, management information, quality assurance, and administrative services for the Retirement and Insurance Group. He received the Director's award for Distinguished Service at OPM for improving the financial management of the benefit systems.

    Before joining the Federal Government in 1975, Mr. Webster was a senior accountant with Haskins & Sells, where he specialized in C.P.A. audits and systems development for public and private corporations.

    Mr. Webster has also received the Department of the Treasury's award for Distinction in Payments Management in 1990 for his work in improving the cash management of the Federal Employees' Health Benefits system and the Achievement of the year Award in 1997 from the Association of Government Accountants' Washington Chapter for improving the Library's financial management.
 Page 144       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. Webster is a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Government Financial Manager. He also passed the Certified Internal Auditor examination in August 1980. He holds a bachelor of science degree in accounting from the University of Maryland. He has taught accounting and auditing courses at the Northern Virginia Community College and Howard County Community College in Columbia, Maryland. Mr. Webster is a member of the Washington Chapter of the Association of Government Accountants (AGA) and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Mr. Webster has also been a member of AGA's national Finance and Budget Committee for the past 3 years.

    Mr. WALSH. We have your prepared remarks, and if you would like to proceed and summarize, we would be happy to entertain your comments. Thank you for your time.

    Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it is all right, I would like to take a minute to introduce some of the Council members that are with us today.

    Mr. WALSH. Sure.

    Mr. BROWN. We have Stuart Pregnall from the Architect of the Capitol; Bruce Holmberg from the Capitol Police; Beth Hughes Brown from Office of Compliance; Polly Hodges from the Congressional Budget Office; Bill Guy and Bruce Holstein from the Government Printing Office; Frank Derville from the House Finance Office; and John Lainhart, the Inspector General for the House, who are all participants in the Council.

    Mr. WALSH. It is good to have all of you here. Thank you.
 Page 145       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Mr. BROWN. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly summarize some of the Council's activities for the last year and then perhaps Mr. Webster could briefly outline what the plan is for the coming year. The Council is a voluntary organization, which as you mentioned, was established in October of '96 to promote more efficient and effective financial management practices in the legislative branch.

    To date, all of the members of the Council have agreed to adopt a vision and goals statement of the Council, and we have, on several occasions, been asked to provide assistance and counsel to several legislative branch entities on various matters. For example, we have been asked to provide some consultation and assistance to the Architect as they have considered a new financial management system and have begun dealing with some year 2000 compliance issues. We have also met with some of the staff of the Senate Rules Committee to discuss with them the implementation of a new financial management system in the Senate, as well as their compliance with year 2000 issues.

    We have also initiated some discussions with the Capitol Police to help them explore some cross-servicing arrangements for a financial management system that would comply with Federal standards and permit them to get in a position of producing auditable financial statements.

    Last year, we held three general sessions of the Council, where we discussed the implementation of Federal managerial cost accounting standards, the current capabilities of the client server environment as it relates to Federal financial systems, and opportunities for cross-servicing and system sharing to meet the needs of system expansion and replacements in the legislative branch.
 Page 146       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We also have addressed some issues regarding the year 2000 compliance with each of our members and we reviewed some of the best practices for planning and experiencing successful financial statement audits. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will let Mr. Webster tell you what we will be doing in the coming year.

    Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Council plans to devote most of its attention in the next two fiscal years towards reviewing best practices that will help us ensure year 2000 compliance for financial systems, continuing the effort we started in the previous year; exchanging information and sharing ideas for improving financial operations; and preparing auditable financial statements for each legislative branch entity.

    I would like to reiterate Mr. Brown's point that the Council is voluntarily working together to improve financial management of the legislative branch. The Council is very appreciative of the Committee's support and asks for your continued help in Fiscal Year 1999. We and other members of the Council are available to answer any questions.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you for the brevity of your statements. It's welcome, it is refreshing, and we will try to do the same. The staff has told me over and again what an important role you provide and how helpful you have been in every area, and, you know, indeed providing the sort of guidance OMB does for the executive branch.

 Page 147       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Last year, and you mentioned this, we asked you to review the plans of the Architect to adapt their internal accounting system so it would be year 2000 compatible and improve its budgetary controls. The group cautioned that the end result would be a general ledger accounting system that would not be compliant with Federal standards.

    As a result, the Architect redirected his efforts to eliminate the noncompliance problem. We appreciate the cooperation of the Architect's Office on that also. Have you followed up with the Architect's Office to determine how the project is going and is it fair to say they will meet Federal standards.

    Mr. BROWN. We have not had the occasion to go back and discuss this specifically with the Architect's Office. However, at our last meeting, Mr. Pregnall reported on their progress and indicated in that report that they are now on a track that looks like they will be year 2000 compliant and have addressed many of the problems that they originally had been struggling with. So based upon that report, it looks like they are on the right track.

    Mr. WALSH. Do you leave it at that or do you sit down and review the steps that have been made.

    Mr. BROWN. In our last meeting with the Architect, he indicated that he would probably be inviting us to come back and counsel with him further at a future time, so we stand ready whenever that invitation comes to provide him any assistance that we can.

 Page 148       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. Can you give us any specific suggestions at where the agencies need to improve their financial management systems?

    Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Chairman, all members of the Council are working toward a common set of goals. One of the key goals is the implementation of standard general ledger accounting. SGL accounting will provide a common language, which will permit the preparation of consolidated financial statements and make it easier to share systems within the legislative branch. Six agencies have already implemented SGL accounting and three agencies are taking steps to do that right now. Implementing SGL accounting is one of the key suggestions for improvement.

    Mr. WALSH. What are the three agencies that need to take those steps?

    Mr. WEBSTER. The Architect of the Capitol, Government Printing Office and the Senate.


    Mr. WALSH. Do you think it is realistic for the legislative branch to have that goal of a common financial management system?

    Mr. WEBSTER. A goal of the Council is to prepare consolidated financial statements and to have a consolidated audit. Another goal is to operate integrated financial systems that may be shared among legislative agencies. Those are both goals included in our vision and goals statement. We think those goals can be reached. Although, I might add, that while one financial system may be possible, it may not be desirable in all cases because of some of the varying requirements of individual agencies. I think the key, again, is to implement one common language, that is a standard general ledger language, that will permit legislative branch agencies to work together to meet these goals.
 Page 149       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. Anything else you would like to add before I turn it over to Mr. Serrano? Congressman Serrano.

    Mr. SERRANO. Very briefly. You spoke about the next 2 years and what you intend to do. What do you envision will be the needs during that period, and secondly, I am a little confused about the whole issue of how we got to so many different accounting practices. How did that happen, that we have so many different ones?

    Mr. WEBSTER. Let me take the second part first, Mr. Serrano. It is not unusual, in the Federal Government, to have a number of different financial systems, and that is very prevalent in the executive branch. Actually, the legislative branch has more common systems, I think, than the executive branch, which is really in large part due to the help of this committee and a push toward one common payroll system a number of years ago and also financial systems. A lot of the agencies already have some common system already in-place.

    The executive branch has realized, as well as us, too, that it is more cost-effective to use administrative support centers where agencies can share systems at a reduced cost. I think that is something that we are working toward in the legislative branch. I will defer to Mr. Brown for the first part of your question.

    Mr. BROWN. Let me try on the first part of your question. I believe that if we are able to move closer to a common language in all of our systems and produce a consolidated set of financial statements, then we can have one audit for the legislative branch, instead of eight or nine, this will not only save money, but it will also save mischief. It will enable us to report along with the rest of the government that we are in compliance with the Chief Financial Officers Act and that the legislative branch complies with the standards that have been adopted by the rest of the government.
 Page 150       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SERRANO. Thank you.

    Mr. WALSH. Mr. Cunningham, welcome. Do you have any questions of the witnesses?


    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Just one. When you said one audit, can you do that with nine different agencies? Are you going to be comparing at apples to apples? You know, each one has a couple different areas which they would look at. Is that feasible, to have one audit?

    Mr. BROWN. We believe it is. We believe if the agencies all have a common base in their systems, then we can produce a consolidated set of financial statements. We would assume that each agency, then, would produce auditable statements, that could be rolled up into a set of consolidated statements that would be subject to one audit. Through sampling techniques and other methods, the auditors could be satisfied as to whatever they need to be satisfied with during that audit.

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you. Any further questions of the witnesses? In that case, then, we will allow you to take your leave and thank you very much for your efforts in helping us to get to common financial practices and records I think it will be to the benefit of the legislative branch. I would like to insert a question for the record at this point.
 Page 151       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [A question from Mr. Walsh and response follow:]

    Question. What would the benefit be if we were to achieve these objectives?

    Response. A single consolidated financial statement and audit would save money in several ways. One set of auditors instead of a different auditor for each agency would save money by eliminating multiple procurements. The auditors would also have a different materiality level with a consolidated audit resulting in the reduction of the number of small items that are evaluated. Finally, because many legislative agencies use the same payroll and financial system, the auditors and agency would save time and costs of multiple reviews of the systems by different auditors. In addition to dollar savings, a single consolidated financial statement and audit would contribute to an informed Congress and assure the public that Legislative Branch assets are being safeguarded, financial results are reported accurately, and laws and regulations are being complied with.

    Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you.

    Mr. SERRANO. Thank you.

 Page 152       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  













 Page 153       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  




    Mr. WALSH. We will now take up the Library of Congress. And give them a moment to take their seats.

    Dr. Billington, welcome.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you, sir.

    Mr. WALSH. General Scott, welcome to you. We have before us the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James H. Billington, and we also welcome retired General Donald L. Scott, Deputy Librarian of Congress.


    Mr. WALSH. The 1999 budget of the Library assumes total funds available will be $527.5 million, from a variety of sources, including appropriated funds, receipts, gifts, trusts, and revolving funds, and the reimbursable program. Funding requests before the committee today are $397 million, an increase of $19.8 million or 5.25 percent over the current level.
 Page 154       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    This level of resources includes $27.7 million in offsetting collections. The Library is requesting an additional 42 positions above the current FTE level of 4,275. An additional 338 FTEs are supported from other sources. Dr. Billington, would you like to introduce members of your staff?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WALSH. Maybe you can withhold for just a moment and we will get some folks in and close the door.

    Are you ready to proceed? Dr. Billington.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. I think the only three members of our staff who have not previously been introduced to the committee are Elizabeth Zaic, the Acting Director of Integrated Support Services; Kenneth Lopez, our Director of Security; and, finally, Kathy Williams, our Budget Officer. General Scott and myself and the rest of the people you met before.

    Mr. WALSH. Welcome to all.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Should I continue?

    Mr. WALSH. We have your statement. If you would like to summarize or proceed, feel free.

 Page 155       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to highlight just a few points from the full statement, before showing the committee a short video, and then be followed by General Scott. The Library of Congress is a totally unique institution, as you are aware, with a mission that is both national and moral.

    As the Library of Congress, it has a national mission to serve the first branch of the government of a free people. And it has the moral mission of facilitating the creative use of the world's knowledge for the good of our Nation.

    The problem in our time is that the very nature of the collections is changing. Knowledge is increasingly being generated and communicated in electronic and ephemeral form. And with the growing flood of unsorted electronic information available today, the Congress and the Nation needs a trusted knowledge navigator—the Library of Congress—more than ever, to help sustain our knowledge-based democracy.

    Our public culture, Mr. Chairman, is in danger of moving back down the evolutionary chain from knowledge to information and from information to miscellaneous raw data—and perhaps just to an unsorted and an ungrammatical stream of consciousness. We may be sinking down, rather than rising up to those twin peaks of wisdom and creativity, that are created on top of knowledge, and are the source of vitality and dynamism in a democracy.

    To sustain our knowledge-based democracy in this information inundated world, the Library of Congress has to collect, preserve, make secure and accessible this rapidly emerging, often confusing electronic universe, while still protecting intellectual property rights and at the same time continuing to collect and service non-electronic materials, whose volume is also paradoxically increasing even at this time.
 Page 156       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    This makes a set of daunting challenges, and we are very much in need of the committee's continued support, including funding mandatory pay raises and unavoidable price level increases, and, also, $2 million for the replacement of personal computers that will not work after the year 2000, if we are to make this change without eroding what we have already done, and impeding our transition to an increasingly electronic world.


    Dr. BILLINGTON. We celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Thomas Jefferson Building last year, so magnificently restored by the grace and support of this committee long years ago and through many years. We inaugurated the Library's Bicentennial efforts, which will dramatize the essential role that the Library of Congress and all libraries play in keeping democracy dynamic. The Bicentennial efforts are being carried out almost entirely by private funds.

    We are doing more for more people with 12 percent fewer staff than in 1992 and are enormously grateful for the committee's support, particularly for the Integrated Library System last year, which is a platform on which all further progress will be based. I ask the committee's support so the Library may head into the 21st Century with expanded digital holdings and with the systems in place to maximize service to the Congress and to all Americans in the localities where they live across the Nation. This is truly an exciting new frontier.

    Mr. Chairman, each of you has a packet of material providing further information about the Library, and we have a short video to give the committee a quick look at the real progress we are making in our electronic services to the Congress and to the Nation. This, I assure you, will not take long and then with your permission, General Scott will add some details.
 Page 157       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Billington follows:]

    [Video shown. Outline of video follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. WALSH. General Scott.


    General SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear with Dr. Billington to present our 1999 budget request.

    The committee's approval of our fiscal year 1997 and our fiscal year 1998 funding levels allowed the Library to make some important gains. It strengthened our management practices, and it really is helping us to perform and prepare our work force to perform more efficiently for the new millennium.

    Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I would like just to take a few moments to highlight a few of those accomplishments.


    Inspired by Dr. Billington's vision, we finalized our strategic plan up to the year 2004. As you saw in the video, we increased the Library's capacity to make numerous products electronically available, and we are pleased that the first release of the Legislative Information System is dramatically improving the communication between the Congress and between the other legislative agencies.
 Page 158       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We also completed facilitative leadership training for 560 managers and supervisors throughout the Library. This has helped to achieve better results, and it has also helped to improve the work environment. We currently have a 1-day course for staff to teach them the same successful collaborative techniques.


    In the area of financial management, we are very pleased, and we are very proud to announce that the Library received its first ever ''clean'' audit opinion on our consolidated financial statements from an independent audit agency. We also cut the arrearage by another 1 million items.

    In short, Mr. Chairman, we realized several goals last year that really helped our management practices and will improve and modernize the services we render to the Congress and to the American people. As Dr. Billington pointed out, we continue to need your help in order to continue to move forward.


    Included in this budget are five items that we think are critical to that continued progress. First and foremost, we have put as the highest priority an initiative that will ensure that all of our computers and automation systems are Year 2000-compliant. The Integrated Library System, which your committee approved for us last year, will provide a computer platform that is Year 2000-compliant. That system, which is scheduled to be installed by the 1st of October, 1999, will improve our collections security, will help with our inventory controls, and will improve our processes throughout the Library.
 Page 159       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The Integrated Library System project team is currently reviewing responses to our request for proposals and will present next month an implementation plan for congressional approval prior to us going out to purchase that system.

    To complete our Year 2000-compliant needs, we are asking in this budget $2 million to purchase new personal computers, computers that will replace computers that we now have that are not Year 2000-compliant.

    We have four other items that we are asking for that we think are very important. For security, we are asking for $2.5 million to fund key elements of our security plan. In the area of off-site storage, we are asking for $1.3 million to begin operations at two off-site collections storage facilities. And for talking books, we are asking for $1,250,000. That will purchase 5,000 additional talking book machines for the blind and physically handicapped.

    Finally, in the area of congressional staff succession, we are asking for $872,000 for the Congressional Research Service to support a succession plan that will help to maintain the high continuity level of service that our Congressional Research Service is providing to the Congress now.


    In total, Mr. Chairman, we are requesting a 6.5 percent net increase, or $22.4 million, 57 percent or $12.9 million of which is required for mandatory wage and price increases, which is once again the largest item in our budget request.
 Page 160       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Further details are in Dr. Billington's formal statement and in our budget justifications. My colleagues and I will welcome any questions you might have.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

    There are five appropriation accounts that provide the primary funding for the Library of Congress. CRS, $68.5 million. Salaries and expenses, $239.4 million, of which $6.5 million is offset by receipts from cataloging sales; Copyright, $35.3 million, of which $21.17 million is collected from receipts and fees; books for the blind and physically handicapped, $48.1 million; furniture and furnishings, $5.7 million. The salaries and expenses budget is the backbone of your agency, as you noted. The book purchase budget, cataloging and reference and reading room funding are all funded by this $239 million appropriation. You are still reporting a cataloging backlog.

    [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:]


    Question. With the low inflation of the past several years, we have to question the need for $2.6 million for higher prices for the goods and services you purchase from outside vendors. Are your procurement people getting the best prices?

    Response. The Library's procurement staff is following Federal procurement practices (detailed in the Federal Acquisition Regulation) to ensure full and open competition to get the best prices for goods and services we purchase from outside vendors. Procurement specialists rely upon several practices to assure best value. Among these are: competition through industry poll; recommendations/suggestions from customers' initial research; automated procurement reports; vendor catalogs; market surveys; personal contacts; professional experience; and specialists are trained in cost/price analysis.
 Page 161       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Question. General Scott, I'm sure you understand the necessity to control price level increases. Will you make an effort to review these price level budgets to see if they can be reduced? Please report what you find back to the committee.

    Response. We have reviewed the amount of price level increases requested in our budget. The total price levels, $2,618,420, represents a 2.2% increase over the total fiscal 1998 non-personals base. The fiscal 1999 CPI, as published as an Economic Assumption in the Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 1999, is also 2.2%. Results of the review are explained in two parts: first, the purchase of books, subscriptions, and overseas field offices; and second, all of the remaining non-personals categories. Historically, inflation rates related to the purchase of Library materials and overseas operations have exceeded CPI rates—these cost categories, for fiscal 1999, increase by 7.5% (equating to $1,037,300). For the remaining non-personals cost categories, the overall price level request is 1.5% (equating to $1,581,120) of the fiscal 1998 base. The original OMB published guidance (July 1997) specified a 2.6% increase for non-personals. OMB revised that guidance, in December 1997, to 2.0%. Based upon an examination of economic factors, inflation rates for library materials and overseas activities, and OMB guidance, the review indicates that the Library's non-personals price level increases are reasonable and within the guidelines used by other Federal agencies.


    Question. Using the format of Table II in your budget justification, provide a breakout of the number of indefinite/temporary employees included in the FTE column on page 3.
 Page 162       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Response. The tabular material is attached.
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."


    Mr. WALSH. How many of the 113 million item holdings have yet to be cataloged into the collections?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. We have about 20 million holdings not yet cataloged.

    Mr. WALSH. Twenty million?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes, having reduced it by 20 million over the last 6 years, since we started this effort with the committee's encouragement and support; we are halfway through clearing the arrearages.

    Mr. WALSH. How much of this budget goes toward reducing those arrearages, and how much headway do you expect to make this year?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, you can't disassociate the arrearage effort from the overall cataloging budget because the whole process of cataloging includes cataloging the arrearages. But the total amount is about $52.5 million. All of that is as involved in arrearage clearance, as it is in general cataloging. The exact targets I am not sure of.
 Page 163       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Winston, what are the exact targets for this year?

    Mr. TABB. We will be——

    Mr. WALSH. State your name for the record.

    Mr. TABB. I'm sorry, Winston Tabb, Associate Librarian.

    We will be having at least 500 of our people working on planning for implementation of the Integrated Library System this year. We are now soliciting volunteers. When we have them, we will determine what impact their ILS planning work will have on the arrearage reduction goals for this year, and we will let the committee know that as part of our plan when we come forward with the request for release of ILS funds.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. I think there will probably be a slight decrease—the numbers for arrearage reduction won't be as great as in recent years simply because many of the same people are required to help structure the ILS implementation, but in the long run, the gains are going to be much greater because the ILS will permit a much more efficient clearing of arrearages. That will be just one of many benefits. But until we have that plan, we can't give you an exact number at this point. We expect progress to continue, but not at as high a level as it was initially, although in the long run there will be a sharp upturn.

    Mr. WALSH. You don't expect, even though you slow down and clean up those arrearages this year, you don't expect to be further behind next year?
 Page 164       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Dr. BILLINGTON. We don't expect to get behind. Of course, all of this is net in the sense that we are keeping up with current inflow, which has been quite considerable, as you will note, in recent years.

    We are making our target, thanks to this committee's support, and Mr. Fazio's strong leadership. He was championing this effort at an early date, before it was generally realized in the Congress how important this was, and of course the clearing of the arrearages has brought a great many materials to light that we didn't know we had—not only to users here in Washington but through the National Digital Library to people throughout the country. So it is really an important project.

    I might point out that we set a record, an all-time record of cataloging books last year. Nearly 290,000 books were cataloged. We have 20 percent less staff than we had 8 years ago, though we are getting 20 percent more productivity. So the investment in this and also the investment in bibliographic work stations, and cooperative and copy cataloging and a number of things the committee has long been cooperatively working on with us and urging us to do have brought some measurable dividends.

    Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:]


    Question. Where are these uncataloged items stored? Are they completely inaccessible if they are not cataloged?
 Page 165       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Response. Uncataloged items are stored in secured areas in the Jefferson, Adams, and Madison buildings, and at Landover, Maryland. Uncataloged and in-process items are accessible to staff and to Congress. They can also be served to patrons by special arrangement, unless such service would be unduly labor-intensive (i.e., costly) or present an unacceptable security risk.

    Question. How much is in this budget to do the cataloging and to what extent will this budget reduce the backlog?

    Response. The Library is requesting no additional funds in the fiscal year 1999 budget for cataloging. The Library's base includes approximately $52.5 million to support cataloging, which is inseparable from the arrearage project.

    The Library is currently assessing the likely impact of Integrated Library System (ILS) planning and implementation on its ability to reduce the uncataloged backlog in the next two fiscal years and will provide this analysis to the Committee in March, as required in last year's House report on our appropriation.


    Question. For the record, update the customary tabulations on annual cataloging statistics and acquisition/collection data.

 Page 166       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. WALSH. That is good to hear.


    Regarding off-site storage, this budget presumes the construction of the off-site storage facility at Fort Meade, that it will be completed next year. When do you expect to occupy that facility?

    General SCOTT. We expect to occupy that facility by the end of fiscal year 1999.

    Mr. WALSH. Your budget indicates you plan to contract out the operation of the storage facility. Existing facilities at Harvard and the University of Texas utilize part-time employees who are university students or otherwise in need of this kind of work; it helps reduce cost and is a good part-time job for those who need such work. Will a contractor supply that kind of staffing? If not, will you look at that possibility of staffing that new facility yourselves?

    General SCOTT. Yes, sir. Our approach to staffing that facility is to go out and seek contractor bids. Once we get those bids, we will compare the cost of contractors to in-house staffing. Our choice will be made depending on which is the most cost-effective.
 Page 167       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. So you have a range of options, both in terms of who will staff and the cost of staffing, and——

    General SCOTT. Yes, sir.

    Mr. WALSH. Is there an in-house option or not?

    General SCOTT. We will look at an in-house option, along with the contractor bid, and make the determination as to which is most cost-effective and go with the best one.

    Mr. WALSH. Do you foresee the need for any additional modules?

    General SCOTT. In our strategic plan, we have other modules that we have planned. We have module number two, which is mostly for books, and that is planned—we would like to occupy that module in fiscal year 2001. Modules three and four, planned to hold books and non-books, would be occupied in year 2003. Then module five, if needed, we would want to occupy that in the year 2005.


    Mr. WALSH. Let's turn to the audio-visual conservation center, for the preservation and accessing the Library's film and sound recording collection. For the benefit of those Members who have not been briefed on this, can you explain the legislation enacted late last session that authorized acquisition of the Culpeper facility, because it was sort of a last minute arrangement that came down in the last week of the session, the last day, perhaps, of the session?
 Page 168       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Public Law 105–144 authorizes the Architect of the Capitol to acquire the Culpeper property for use by the Library, as a national audio-visual conservation center and also mandates that the expenditure of the funds be done through appropriations, with a prior approval of the Library's oversight committees.

    The facility has 140,000 square feet on 41 acres, 20 of which are available for expansion. As you know, it is the former site of the Federal Reserve of Richmond, Virginia for storage of money. It has deep vaults which have ideal configurations in many respects for storing our audio-visual properties, which have been scattered around in a variety of places where we are paying to lease space. This situation has not only been expensive but it has been hard on the materials because they have to be carted around, brought to Washington, and constantly loaded and unloaded to be brought to different locations. These sites are widely dispersed in several different places, ranging from Suitland, MD, which we have to vacate this year, to the Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, and so forth. The facilities are also becoming antiquated and would have required a lot of additional maintenance.

    We were fortunate enough to get a private donor to put up the money for this purchase. The arrangement, as it stands now, just to bring you up to date on it—since the law was signed by the President, on December 15.

    The Library is not authorized to take title to facilities like this, so we have been working together with the donor and the Architect of the Capitol to do the following things: First of all, the environmental assessment of the property was completed on January 20, just a few days ago, and showed no surprises. A due diligence assessment in conjunction with the Architect of the Capitol, has been started and will be completed by the end of February, and will look at all of the structural, mechanical and electrical systems, the waterproofing, and other things, in order to ensure satisfactory condition of the building prior to the transfer of property to the donor, which we expect on April 1st of 1998.
 Page 169       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Meanwhile, we are developing a master plan in conjunction with the Architect of the Capitol, which should be completed in May of 1998, which scopes out the overall project prior to proceeding with renovation and design.

    The transfer of the property from the donor to the Architect of the Capitol is planned for 1999. So we are on track with a good procedure. We are blessed with a very generous, helpful donor, and very good cooperation from the Architect of the Capitol. We have, you know, 770,000 reels of film. We have the world's largest collection of movies and of sound recordings, something like 2.4 million sound recordings, and immense amounts of television tape. We have a mandate dating back to 1976 to create a national archive in the radio and television area.

    We have this immense amount of material that has been widely scattered. It is going to be better preserved, it is going to be more usable, and it is, in the long run, going to be more economical to maintain because it will be in one place and we won't have all these various leasing arrangements and expenses we currently have. We are already getting a reduction as we phase Suitland out.

    We expect, by the way, to begin storing some non-nitrate film immediately this next summer. This is very important because summer is always a difficult time. What we found in our congressionally-mandated study of film preservation a couple of years ago is that the most important thing for film is the storage conditions and not so much the quality of the material. Probably everything we have in the Library, at least since 1850, in almost any format, is degrading at some speed or another. So storage conditions become increasingly important if we are going to preserve the national heritage and the Culpeper facility gives us a consolidated place. There will be a lot of interchangeable values in having all the audio-visual items in one place. We expect there also to be a back-up place for digital storage, which will become increasingly important.
 Page 170       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. The intent was to use donated funds for the acquisition of the facility and the renovation. Do you still anticipate being able to do that?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes, sir. We hope to. We have, of course, gotten off to a very good start there. We hope to do it primarily, though not exclusively, with donated funds. We hope that the basic carrying and maintenance costs will be carried on the Federal side, but that the heavy capital investment, particularly the nitrate storage vaults—which are going to be the major new expense—will mostly be on the private side. This is a heavy fundraising burden, but we have been able to do it with the National Digital Library. We hope we can accomplish this, even though we have one of the smallest development staffs of any cultural institution—even those half our size. But we hope we will be able to do that.

    Mr. WALSH. Lastly, then I will go to Mr. Serrano, we would like to see a renovation operations funding plan developed for the program. Do you plan to prepare such a plan?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. I am sorry?

    Mr. WALSH. The subcommittee would like to see a renovation/operations funding plan.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. That is what we hope to get done by early this summer and we will get that to you. That is on the schedule. In fact, it is a master plan we are working on with the Architect of the Capitol. We hope to have it done by May, and we will of course immediately get it to the committee.
 Page 171       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:]


    Question. You consulted with the Architect of the Capitol on prospective renovation needs of the facility in Culpeper, Virginia. The AOC will be responsible for whatever rehabilitation or construction is necessary. Have you seen any AOC building renovation plans and construction documents? What is the status of the activity?

    Response. The Library, Architect of the Capitol and the Packard Foundation are working as a team to advance the development of the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center. The initial study for the facility, an Environmental Site Assessment, has been completed. Work is in progress on a Due-Diligence Analysis of the existing infrastructure of the building. Work will begin shortly on an overall Master Plan for the entire developmental project, which will not only include renovation of the existing building but also include the construction of the Nitrate Conservation Laboratory and the Nitrate Storage Vaults. The team expects the consulting architect to start the actual design of the existing building renovation during June, 1998.

    Question. You also planned a high ratio of private/public funding for operational costs. What is your goal for that ratio? Does this budget reflect that policy?

    Response. The Library is proposing the same 3–1 private/public funding ratio for the Culpeper project as the Congress approved for the National Digital Library program.
 Page 172       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. Mr. Serrano.

    Mr. SERRANO. Thank you.


    Dr. Billington, in addition to the sites you just mentioned, how many sites do you have and what kinds of materials are stored in those sites? I mean, is there an order to what is stored at different places, or do all the sites have an array of different items?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. There are a variety of sites. Of course, one of the beauties of the Fort Meade location is that it will concentrate the book and print materials, largely, in one storage place. The Culpeper site will deal with the audio-visual materials.

    At the moment, we are much more widely diffused. We have a lot of material in Landover, where the Library has a large warehouse. There is a significant amount of material in Suitland. There are films in caves in Boyers, Pennsylvania. There is the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, where we run the only full-time, nonprofit film preservation facility in the country. The nitrate film storage is largely there, but not exclusively; some of it is in Suitland. So currently we have a widely disbursed set of locations, and we hope to really consolidate almost all collections in two sites, each within easy driving distance of Washington. Fort Meade, of course, is less than an hour from Washington. It is only about an hour and a half to Culpeper and reachable on main roads. So there will be a much more consolidated—and efficient means to store, preserve and retrieve materials.
 Page 173       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SERRANO. Your intent is eventually to have those two as the only sites?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. I would hope, yes. For instance, General Scott outlined the four modules at Fort Meade. If there is need of a fifth one, we think that could probably be absorbed at Culpeper because Culpeper will take care of our needs until well into the next century. It is 140,000 square feet of building on 41 acres. Twenty acres can be used for further development. Nitrate film was not something they could accommodate at Fort Meade so we had to be on the lookout for another place to deal with that eventuality.

    But this committee has been very helpful in taking a real interest in this problem for us, and helping us. Fort Meade we owe entirely to the committee. We are very grateful for your support and understanding on the need for the Culpeper facility which came up very suddenly, because the Federal Reserve was going to transfer it elsewhere. If we hadn't moved very rapidly, thanks to the Congress, we would have been in trouble.


    I should mention also the Taylor Street facility, which is where the entire operation of the Blind and Physically Handicapped Library is located. This operation provides such a wonderful service, with 780,000 clients and 23 million items distributed, in cooperation with the Postal Service and with local institutions.

    The NLS/BPH facility functions very well and is in good shape, but we rather hope we might be able to consolidate it with the Library at some point.
 Page 174       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Let's see if I missed anything. Oh, yes, I am sorry, the Market Square Annex, which houses the FEDLINK reimbursable program. That is a program where we do consolidated purchasing, on a reimbursable basis, for 1,300 Federal libraries, saving Federal agencies more than $9 million annually.

    The Taylor Street Annex is here in the District, as is the Market Square Annex for the reimbursable programs that we run, so this will represent something of a consolidation, and we hope with the reconfigurations that are going on now that the building is fully operative here, we will be able to bring you a little more on Capitol Hill at the same time.

    [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:]


    Question. You occupy space at the Taylor Street building. How much space do you have at Taylor Street?

    Response. We lease about 105,000 square feet from GSA. This includes nearly 83,000 in office space and 22,000 in roof parking.

    Question. That space is rented through GSA from a private landlord. How much does it cost to lease, provide security, and other costs associated with renting space outside of the main Library buildings?

 Page 175       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Response. The fiscal 1999 amount budgeted for the rental of space at Taylor Street is $1.8 million. The Library's costs for security there are estimated at $76,000.


    Question. Please describe the operation and costs associated with running the Library's child care facility. How many children and families are served? Do we have congressional staff members children in attendance? If so, how many staff members take advantage of this service . . . on a daily basis and on a monthly basis? Are the children of House or Senate members or staff served at this facility and, if so, what percentage of the total numbers do they constitute?

    Response. The Library of Congress entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Library of Congress Child Care Association (LCCCA), a recognized employee organization of the Library, on June 2, 1994. The LCCCA is a corporation incorporated in the District of Columbia under the District's Nonprofit Corporation Act. LCCCA was granted 501(c)(3) status by the Internal Revenue Service on August 31, 1992. The MOU exercises authority granted under the Trible Amendment and P.L. 101–520. The Library appointed an official to act as liaison between the Library and the LCCCA. The Liaison is the Library's representative to the LCCCA and a non-voting observer of the activities of the LCCCA, the Center and its Board of Directors.

    The Little Scholars Child Development Center, located at 601 East Capitol Street, operates from 7:15 a.m. to 6:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and the day after Thanksgiving. Children in age ranging from 3 months to 5 years are accepted. Tuition for each age group varies from $624–$800 monthly. Based on availability of funds, tuition assistance may be given for up to 50 percent of the biweekly costs for those who qualify.
 Page 176       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The direct costs paid by the Library of Congress for fiscal 1997 were $140,850. Indirect costs—staff time for Liaison and Library staff—are estimated at $77,180. This does not include support provided by the Architect of the Capitol and LCCCA costs (e.g., teachers' salaries).

    Children of House and Senate members/staff represent 35.2 percent of all attendees. As noted below, 30 of the 85 attendees are children of congressional members or staff. This figure includes two children of a Member of Congress. All attend on a monthly basis. As of February 1998, the following table depicts the distribution of children and families served:

Table 6


    Mr. SERRANO. Dr. Billington, you mentioned restoration. Was that film restoration?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Film——

    General SCOTT. Preservation?

    Mr. SERRANO. Yes, film preservation. I see a lot of programs on TV where they are selling all kinds of gimmicks on AMC and other channels to preserve films. Do you get any help from the movie industry or from some of the relatives of the people whose films you would like to preserve, or is that—does the Government pick up that tab all by itself?
 Page 177       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Dr. BILLINGTON. We haven't had as much help from the film industry as one would like, but they have taken a greater interest in film preservation in recent years. A couple of years ago, we were urged to define national standards for archival quality preservation, which we have done.

    If you define it in terms of really rigorous preservation of the original artifact in enduring form, rather than just putting it in a can in an air conditioned room—which is an improvement. We have probably done something like two-thirds or three-quarters of the archival quality film preservation ever done in this country. A few other laboratories, a few other places like UCLA, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Eastman House in Rochester, have also contributed to this effort.

    We have found that Congress is concerned about this, and approved a National Film Preservation Foundation. We would very much welcome Congress' and the committee's support in the dialogue we hope to have with the film industry to get their fuller participation.

    The studios take some interest in their own films but the main problem is the so-called orphan films.

    Mr. SERRANO. They take interest in what they can show on TV.

    How am I doing on time, Mr. Chairman?

    Mr. WALSH. You have lots.
 Page 178       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SERRANO. But you hear horror stories like three Chaplin films that have disappeared, they don't exist anymore. Does that mean you have a copy of them?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Eighty-one percent of all silent films have disappeared forever. We are dealing only with 19 percent, almost all of which have been restored by the Library of Congress, including the entire paper print collection. We have the only copy of many of these—it is a very dramatic story. Only until recent years has anybody cared—the studios largely discarded their silent films when they went over to sound films in the early 1930's.

    I mean, for instance, much of the Harold Lloyd corpus was rediscovered in a landfill in permafrost in the Yukon in Canada. Fortunately, it was well preserved because it was really cold—the preservation standards call for cold temperatures, and they had it in spades up there. But that is hardly an ideal preservation mode.

    The American Film Institute played an important role at the beginning in locating a lot of these films and getting them in the Library of Congress. Only in 1972 did the Library get copyright deposit for films, so we had to assemble a retrospective collection with a lot of help.

    But the actual work, the physical work of preserving these films, is done by 20 heroic people at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, who are preserving America's film heritage. The American taxpayer is helping with this. Also, to some extent the Arts Endowment has provided money for the other studios and centers: UCLA, the Museum of Modern Art, Eastman House, and some other smaller places in Wisconsin and a few others which do a small amount.
 Page 179       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    But the great majority of films made are already lost or disintegrated—it is sort of a losing battle against time. Nitrate films, as you know, disintegrate into gunpowder. That is why it cannot be stored on Capitol Hill; we have to store nitrate film in bunkers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

    This is a major problem. The Congress has been absolutely pioneering, first of all, in supporting film preservation as a national need, and second, in creating, now, mechanisms that we hope will involve the industry more actively in archival quality preservation as distinguished from simply reformatting films for television, where the industry has an obvious economic interest.


    Question. The preservation budget is $10.9 million. This program includes binding some documents to protect them, microfilming, digitizing, and advising the custodial divisions on how to handle the collections in order to minimize damage and deterioration. This is the program that is also experimenting with methods for removing acid from books. Acid paper is especially short-lived and the Library has been conducting a deacidification research program for many years. The current method of choice apparently is the ''Bookkeeper'' process. Please outline that process and the degree to which the Library is using Bookkeeper to deacidify the collections.

    Response. Bookkeeper is a liquid-base mass deacidification technology that neutralizes the acid in paper by impregnating it with magnesium oxide particles. The process meets the Library's technical requirements for extending the useful life of books without causing any undesirable side-effects or endangering staff, Library patrons, or the environment. The Library's plan, approved by the Committee last summer, calls for deacidifying at least 236,400 books during the next four years under a newly-awarded contract using the Bookkeeper process. Production incentives built into the contract will enable us to treat almost 40,000 additional books at no cost to the government if we are successful in our efforts to encourage other libraries to deacidify books using the Bookkeeper process.
 Page 180       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Question. How much is in this budget for deacidification? How will it be used?

    Response. The Library is requesting no additional funds in the fiscal year 1999 budget for mass deacidification. The budget base includes about $4.5 million in ''no-year'' funding. The Committee previously provided the authority, under a ''no-year'' appropriation, to expend these funds for deacidification over the next four years. The funds will be used to deacidify books from the Library's general, law, and special collections.

    Question. What are your long range plans for using any mass production process?

    Response. The Library views mass deacidification as one of several useful options for preservation, along with such treatments as conservation, microfilming, boxing, and binding. The Committee's approval of the Library's Mass Deacidification Action Plan now enables us to integrate deacidification into our preservation program as a standard preservation activity. The choice of which preservation treatment to use depends on a number of factors, including cost, condition, and potential use of the item. Deacidification is currently one of the cheapest preservation options. It costs about $15 to process and deacidify a book, $135 to microfilm that same book. We will use this mass preservation process as long as there are acidic, endangered materials in our collections for which deacidification is the appropriate option—that is for the foreseeable future. Through Commerce Business Daily announcements, we have continued to encourage other companies with deacidification technologies, capable of mass treatment, to come forward if their processes have the potential to meet or exceed the Library's technical requirements.
 Page 181       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I don't know, and I don't have all the information I should have on how much we have done on this, but certainly maybe in the future, this Congress, in the near future, could look at prodding the film industry somehow to become a partner, so the taxpayer does not pick all of this up.

    This is a cultural tragedy that we are running into in this country, that a lot of our artwork, if you will, is just disintegrating and has disappeared. The film industry now is making more money than ever before. They should be thinking a little bit about pumping some money in preserving the work of those that have come before them, and many of those are real gems.

    I don't want to prolong this. I just want to ask you a couple of more quick questions here.


    Mr. SERRANO. You said you had 20 million items in arrears that you had not catalogued yet?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes.

    Mr. SERRANO. So the question——

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Approximately. Probably a little less by now.

 Page 182       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. SERRANO. 20,550,000. Will you ever catch up? Can you catch up? You are dealing with this large amount. We are certainly producing a lot in this country. If you just keep up with that every year, will you ever catch up on the 20 million you have not catalogued?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, we have reduced that by half while still keeping up with an increased flood of materials. I just cannot stress and praise too highly the work that our catalogers have done. There were nearly 1,200—1,181 people, I believe—that we had in 1991, and we have only 900 now working in this area. As I say, they are cataloging much more than before.

    That has been partly the result of a move we have made over 10 years from a kind of assembly-line approach to a whole-book team approach, with the use of SWAT teams. In addition, the use of new kinds of minimal level batch cataloging, the use of copy cataloging, and the use of cooperative cataloging with other institutions has increased productivity. It has become a much more networked and cooperative activity.

    There is a great deal more being done by others, which helps us in turn, but the clearing of arrearages is, by and large, clearing unique things that only this Library has.

    Our entire bibliographic record is on-line and available to anybody with a computer and a modem. What we are really doing is bringing things that were largely unknown, not just to a few readers in the reading rooms here, but to the attention of the whole country. So it is an exciting prospect.
 Page 183       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I think we will continue to make progress. The Integrated Library System that you were kind enough to enable us to launch last year will assist with this effort. Our original target was to clear 80 percent of arrearages, and we hope to reach that. We may be a little more delayed because of one thing or another, but we are pretty well settling in and making steady progress. We expect to continue to make progress.

    Mr. SERRANO. One last question. I will try to make the question brief. I appreciate the same thing in the answer, because it could be a long answer.

    You paint a good and a real picture of an exciting place for the Library of Congress. You paint a great picture for a very rosy future. But when you sit around, is there something pending out there that scares you to death about something that you will face, that the Library could face in the next few years, in the next generation, that if we don't deal with early on—I keep thinking of the New York City subway system. Everybody sat around and said it is the best system in the world, they did nothing to face the future, and then we went through a period when everybody was complaining about it and what a big mess it was. They said, what happened? Well, when it was great, no one planned for the day that it may not be great.


    Dr. BILLINGTON. I will have one thing to say and then turn it over to General Scott. The one thing that I would say is, my big fear is that we will not replace the depth and quality of the people we have working with these collections; that we will simply take it for granted, not realizing they are getting older and a lot are going to choose to retire. We are going to have a very heavy retirement problem.
 Page 184       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    General Scott can fill you in on some of the details on this. But we have people throughout the Library, and in the Congressional Research Service, with many, many years of experience. Not only are we concerned that they will retire, but that they will retire without having transmitted the knowledge they have to another generation. Almost everything in the Library of Congress is unique—the size, the dimensions, the depth of the collections, the singularity of the kinds of requests that the Congress makes and is going to be making even more in the future. All of that results in highly learned knowledge that you can't easily replace; or farm out; you can't simply recruit somebody from a university campus.

    The Library expanded a lot right after the war, and then it had another big burst when Congress wanted to beef up its support efforts in the early seventies. A lot of staff hired then are eligible to retire. My big fear is that we will wake up one day and suddenly realize we have all this material but we don't have the people who are the intermediaries. The more of this material you acquire, the more important it is to have the people who can understand it.

    So we have a massive job in training a whole new generation. We have to not only replace the knowledge we have, we have to make sure that it is combined with knowledge and familiarity with electronic technology. We are looking for the knowledge navigators of the future. It is going to have to be somebody who can handle electronics but also know substantive material, so they can be a navigator. They will know navigational skills, but they will also have to know what the ocean is like.

    Another big fear is that we will just take the people for granted and we won't replace them, train them, develop them, and bring along the next generation.
 Page 185       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    There are also fears of not being able to maintain service. General Scott probably has some other thoughts on this.

    General SCOTT. No. Just to amplify Dr. Billington's concerns, I would say that bringing along the next generation is the greatest challenge facing the Library of Congress within the next 3 to 5 years. Forty-five percent of our work force will be eligible to retire. Many—and CRS has identified about 60 of those special employees who have such knowledge, that if they were to leave without us having an orchestrated, well-coordinated plan, it could cause some serious damage to the quality of the service.

    On the other side, in Library Services, there are another 30 or so curatorial kinds of positions that have been identified that are very special, one of a kind. That is not to say that the other individuals are not important, but we are just focused on the ones who we believe we have to make special arrangements to accommodate their leaving. So I would agree with Dr. Billington, that that is the greatest challenge I think we face.

    Mr. SERRANO. Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WALSH. Mr. Cunningham.


 Page 186       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I think most Members on both sides of the aisle support what you are doing, trying to open up the Library of Congress to the general public, especially in our education systems.

    I have one real concern in that. Dale Kildee, a Democrat, was Chairman of the Education Subcommittee, a very good friend of mine. Then I was his chairman after we took the Majority. But the both of us together killed history standards, mainly because the history standards were written by some left-wing liberal college professors that wanted to rewrite history, and that were teaching more about McCarthyism and Madonna than they were the Magna Carta.

    Are there any protections that are going in so that people don't rewrite history in these things? Like the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian. We got that rascal responsible for that fired. But those kinds of things scare me when we, you know, compile history. There is a group that says Thanksgiving was an evil plot, a mean-spirited plot when it was established—rewriting history. Are there any protections that are going into what you have in the Library?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Let me——

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't want to preclude first amendment rights.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. No. First of all, we are getting a great deal of American history out to the schools and libraries and homes of America. What we are providing are the most interesting and important documents—the primary documents of American history. We are not telling people how to teach it or how to interpret it. We are just getting the records out.
 Page 187       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Just giving the information?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. So people can use it themselves.

    We do have summer institutes. These have been privately funded by the Kellogg Foundation and others, and bring in teachers who discuss among themselves and develop their own curricular ideas on-line, so that it can be shared with other teachers. But this is, we think, kind of the way to go—let them determine how they teach. There are going to be a lot of different ways that this material is used.

    But our job is not to prescribe curriculum or even predetermine what use will be made of this. This is what libraries have always done, provide access to books that disagree with each other; allowing them to sit next to one another on the shelves, and serve people who disagree with one another who may sit next to each other.

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think that is very healthy. All I am saying is directing—taking this and giving a fire hose in a certain direction would be just——

    Dr. BILLINGTON. We are not sending out curricular packages. The private sector and the individual school districts and different groups will use this material in a hundred different ways, the way they use books and magazines that they find in the library.

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would oppose national standards or anything like that to come out of the Library of Congress. I don't need a long answer on it.
 Page 188       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    The second thing was, did you ever see the movie ''Zulu''? It is where the British were being overrun by the Zulus. There were just millions of them coming over the mountain, and there is a single guy that hands out all the ammunition. In the old system, you had to sign for every piece of ammunition. Here the British are, literally getting overrun. They are in the trenches. There are millions of Zulus descending. And this guy was still making the Brish soldiers fill out the vouchers for them—this actually happened—for a package of ammunition. So finally they shot the guy and just took the ammunition.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. I think we are in the General's territory.

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I saw SWAT teams referred to in your testimony, and I thought of the Library.

    The reason I ask it is, I see where now you are getting over 2 million requests a day on the Internet. I have a bill that is expanding the availability of technology in schools, that the President signed in the balanced budget. It is called the 21st Century Classrooms Act, where private institutions can donate computers to the schools. Frequently, the computers are not available to the schools in the right format of software and so on. So donors can go through the Detweiler Foundation, which is a nonprofit. They use prison and brig labor to upgrade the computers, they put them in the school, and many of the donors, through the provisions of my bill, get an expanded write-off for it.

 Page 189       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    The next step is this: I am working with Bill Archer on Ways and Means to do the same kind of thing for libraries across the Nation. Because if you have got a welfare system and you don't have enough training where are people going to go to upgrade their skills, especially on a high-tech level, they won't be able to move above being dish washers, car washers, whatever.

    Now, is that going to give you, at the Library, with this wave of new people, extra work, if we upgrade our libraries with computers and the Internet and hook into your system? Is that going to be counterproductive for you, with all your tasks?

    General SCOTT. I would say it wouldn't be counterproductive, depending on what demands were placed on us, but we have to figure out what kind of additional people, if any, we would have to bring on board to help that effort.

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mainly they would dial in on the Internet and so on, which is not producing additional work for you. Where is, say, a single mother off welfare going to go if she can't get the job training? The library is one of the answers.

    I think if we upgrade our libraries and our colleges and our local places, it is the best thing we can do to help solve that problem. I think the Federal Government can play an important part in that.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. The more people use the material we are digitizing, the better. That is the whole point of digitizing. It is not like having just one copy of a book and then having five copies of the book and then you break down if you have to have 10 copies of the book.
 Page 190       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Once it is digitized, once it is on-line, the magic of the Internet takes over an we realize the benefits of the new technologies through accelerated speed of delivery and simultaneous use by unlimited numbers of people. We always are mindful of a theoretical breaking point on the system. For instance, take the Thomas system. From September of 1996 to September of 1997, the usage on that system nearly quadrupled: from about 2.6 million usages a month to 10.2. Now, that is an exponential increase; we are seeing this growth in the use of our on-line material. So far, you know, we have been able to handle it. We don't see any apocalypse emerging on the scene, as long as we get into the third millennium.


    The General has pretty well disciplined us about the year 2000 challenge as the ultimate bunker that we have to make sure we can scale. The committee has been very helpful, helping us do that. So there are energies being focused on that. But, basically, the amazing thing is the amount of traffic that can be handled; the important thing is that the material is good material, that it is solid. What we are doing is setting a standard of quality for the Internet so that people don't get transfixed by the negatives, that they have a positive alternative.

    The same thing happened at the end of the 19th century when the Library of Congress assumed responsibility for cataloging standards, the way in which print material was recorded. Many people were using the Dewey system, but there was a lot of chaos and it was not adequate for the size and complexity of materials. So too we are now trying to establish content standards. There are a lot of spin-off benefits to this investment that we are making in getting good material out.
 Page 191       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    As long as we are getting good material out, it is our hope that it will be used by everybody, used by more and more people.

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't want to belabor my time. Thank you.

    General SCOTT. That is a challenge we would like to work with you on.

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will work with you on that. Maybe I can get you support for that. That could be good for the country.

    Mr. BILLINGTON. We are going to need more people to answer these inquiries. What you are going to get from the very success of providing information and getting an increased clientele is the need for more staff. People are going to have follow-on questions. Mr. Becker behind me has to put all of these needs together.

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have to step outside. I have another constituent out there. I apologize. I am trying to run here and have people come in at the same time.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. The short answer is yes, we hope it will do it. It won't take that many more people, but it will take some, and more resources as well.

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you.
 Page 192       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham.

    Mr. Fazio.


    Mr. FAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see everyone from the Library here, my old friends and increasingly a large number of new ones.

    I would like to follow up on some of Mr. Cunningham's questions with regard to the National Digital Library project. I saw, as we all did, some commentary on American Memory, but I am wondering, what generally have you been hearing as the reaction to the effort to digitize the Library?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, we are hearing pretty good things. I mean, people like it. They are stimulated by it. Very often the kids are ahead of the teachers in using it, because they are familiar with Nintendo games, and then they stumble on us. And more and more people are using the NDL with homework assignments. It is beginning to get into the classrooms as well as the libraries.

    Mr. FAZIO. They can go directly, instead of through their Members of Congress, to CRS?

    Mr. WALSH. We are not ready to talk about that yet.
 Page 193       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Another interesting thing that has happened to the Library has been spreading the knowledge and use of our digitized collections. We have a $2 million grant from Ameritech, specifically to digitize collections not in the Library. We have 10 other institutions that are digitizing their materials with money that we have raised for them; it is a national competition. And even people who lose, who have a proposal to digitize interesting things they think people would be interested in—even the people who lose get critiques on their proposal, which are reviewed both technically and substantively. So we are helping prime the pump in a lot of other places—so the word is getting around.

    I think it is really all positive. We have had a lot of awards, and I don't want to talk about them, but we have itemized them in one of the handouts.

    Mr. FAZIO. I saw that listed. You have received a lot of honors for your Web site.

    General SCOTT. Just an anecdote: There is a report that I can give you that would give you some feedback. I think it was last year, I had not been here that long, but the Library of Congress hosted a group of teachers from all across the country, and as part of their agenda, they saw an American Memory spot, and several of them—and I won't say what State they were from, but they were known to be very critical of the way the Government spent money——

    Mr. FAZIO. It could have been any one of 50.

 Page 194       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    General SCOTT. Yes. But they came up, there were several standing around in a little cluster, and one of them looked and came up and said, ''You know, if this is the way my government is spending money, then, by God, I don't mind paying my taxes.'' So I thought that was just a resolute pat on the back.

    Mr. FAZIO. It is a good day to remember that particular anecdote.

    Are there any problems? It can't all be wine and roses. There must be some things we have learned that we might not have anticipated, maybe some things we have attempted to solve. We are trying to be, I am sure, self-critical as we go through this, but there must be some people who have asked for something different than we are serving. Does anything come to mind?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. We have been running this thing on a kind of feedback basis. We didn't just have an original plan where we were going to digitize a certain type and amount of material. We intended to get feedback.

    Initially, some of the things we offered were thought to be maybe a little bit too scholarly and not accessible enough but now we have teachers really involved in telling us, what they need—the actual teachers, rather than just the scholars of American history. We are relying heavily on teachers who have some familiarity—classroom familiarity—and librarians who know what people are interested in, and we are getting consumer feedback as well. I think it is a fairly self-correcting system.

    If you had to fish for a problem, I think it would be the fundamental problem of whether people are going to use educational material or are just want instant action every 10 seconds, in order to keep from using their minds. In other words, there are some people who apply a kind of television criteria, for a hurry-up, shortened attention span.
 Page 195       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    But as far as the users who are already on the Internet are concerned, we don't receive much criticisms. I don't want to seem to be Pollyannaish about it, because it is an art form that is developing all along, but I do not think there is any salient criticism that I can think of.

    Originally, we didn't have nearly as much explanatory material as we now have. That has definitely changed. People need more guidance, and want more explanatory material.

    That, in turn is very labor intensive. I would say if there is any concern I have about our efforts, it is the concern about our curators, who are already very heavily taxed and are doing this kind of interpretive work on top of their reference and research work, because it is their expertise that we are tapping for the selection of material. When you have, 20 million documentary photographs and you are trying to decide which ones to digitize, you have to rely on the curator's judgment. You have to pick carefully out of the whole collection.

    There was, I think, some concern since we were going to the K–12 market that there wasn't quite enough of sports and entertainment—areas with educational value but closer to where a lot of kids need to begin who aren't learning already. So we just got out an important Jackie Robinson collection for instance.

    We have the largest performing arts library in the world. A lot of that, of course, is still under intellectual property protection while most of the NDL content is in public domain. We try to get permission for other things that are of interest, and sometimes the owners allow us to do this because they realize it is basically an educational endeavor.
 Page 196       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FAZIO. So you are trying to bridge from sports and entertainment to history, trying to find ways to get kids interested, so they can go further.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes. So I would say if there is a general direction, if you look at what we are doing, it is to make it more user friendly, to use that awful term.

    Mr. FAZIO. Certainly for this generation that is absolutely essential, because if it isn't user friendly, we often pick up a book.

    Mr. WALSH. If only that were the case.

    Mr. FAZIO. That is the best spin I can put on it.


    Mr. FAZIO. What is the desire of the Library in terms of its total collection? What are we going to try to digitize, and over what period of time? Where are we? Give me some benchmarks.

    We know there is so much material, and only so much of it is already there. How much more are we going to put on? Are we going beyond the K–12 period? Are we going to try to put the Library's basic collections out there for people? That is a massive undertaking.
 Page 197       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Dr. BILLINGTON. This is something we want to be in dialogue with the Congress about, because the original concordance, if you can remember—as you helped us draft it—was to establish our content goal for the year 2000. We had the 5-year experiment with the American Memory prototype from 1990 to 1995 and we proved that it had a real K–12 market. Then 1996 to the year 2000, we were going to aim to digitize 5 million items of American history and culture, the most interesting and important ones.

    We have not quite raised all the private money. We are very close to having raised it all. But we have enough to operate on, and we are confident that we are going to get it all raised. The Congress has been marvelous about enabling us to continue, with its firm base of annual support.

    Now, the question really becomes then, what do we do beyond that? We are going to try to resolve this over the next year. So by the time we return to this committee next year, I think we will be able to give you some pretty good answers.

    Let me indicate to you just briefly what we are considering. Should we digitize another chunk? We could still do that. We will assess this. At the very minimum, we will continue servicing what we have digitized. This has to be a continuous obligation. The NDL has a very continually growing constituency. We want to make sure of what we have, and we will probably add marginally, in any event.

    Mr. FAZIO. What would it be?

 Page 198       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Dr. BILLINGTON. It could be more of the same. I mean, if we reach the 5 million, we still will not have exhausted the Library's collections. We would have 115 million items in the Library of Congress and only 5 million on-line. There are many more items just in the Americana field, but should it be another package that is broader than America?

    I will give you another example. I have had discussions with the Spanish Government, with the Russian Government, and with the Chinese recently, all of whom want to do a joint effort. They have heard about the NDL. The Russians are talking about the meeting of the frontiers—the opening of the American West and then the opening of Siberia, meeting in Alaska. We have all the records of Russian Alaska, for instance, so we could do it cooperatively. One possibility is to expand the NDL. Or we could do some other educational package, maybe smaller. There are a whole lot of different options.

    Another totally different option which I have been considering that we might want to discuss—if the Congress thinks it is a good idea—with the private sector is doing a package or getting some kind of service that helps the productive private sector. We have anything you want to know about the Japanese economy. We have not only the materials—we have the largest foreign collections of almost every country outside of that country. And because we provide universal cataloging service in so many different languages, we also have expertise; the people who catalog all of this material know a great deal about these subjects.

    There is knowledge stored and part of the knowledge is hidden within the curators themselves—that could be of great value to our productive private sector in its international competitiveness, so we might want to do a totally different package. In the question of determining our sense of the future, what we are trying to do is to discuss and develop these options, and then discuss with the congressional committees what we should be considering.
 Page 199       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FAZIO. There are a whole lot of issues raised here. There are unlimited things, almost, that you can do.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. What should we do with the Congress' library? You have collected the largest supply of knowledge in the history of the world. It is very comprehensive in its inclusiveness of overseas material, and it seems to me that having done a package for education, we ought to at least consider if we can do a package of support for the productive private sector.

    Mr. FAZIO. When you say ''for the productive private sector,'' are you anticipating that they would make funds available to develop this on the premise that they would have the greatest benefit and use for it?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. I would think if we got into that business, that should be on a self-sustaining basis. That should also be encapsulated, so anything we entered into does not interfere with the free services that we provide. So that would be a totally different operation. It would be a form of digitalization on demand.

    Mr. FAZIO. For example, let's stop and think. The Japanese economy, obviously we would all like to have that information available to American policymakers, but it would be very valuable to a lot of people in the private sector; everybody doing, you know, analysis of the Japanese economy for Wall Street or other investment entities.

    Are we going to be driven by where the money would be, where the market could be made, or are we going to—as the American Library Association historically wants us to be—driven by, the marketplace of ideas and make it available on the basis of its intrinsic value to the general public? Are we going to be driven by where we can raise the money? Because this committee is going to be limited, at least in the pace of what we could invest.
 Page 200       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Dr. BILLINGTON. This could never—if we get into anything like this—be in place of or as a means of support of the basic free services that this library has always performed.

    Mr. FAZIO. But we would be permitting it in a format that would make it far more immediately available to people.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes, we already do that. We have a Japan Documentation Center, for instance, which gathers in additional documentation over and above that which the Congress was very interested in a few years ago, and which we have established.

    Mr. FAZIO. Right.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. So we have a tremendous network for gathering in foreign knowledge and information and it is all freely available. The question is: Is there some digital aspect to our foreign collections? Should we do another chunk of American history or English language material, or should we try to get some of the big, wide world out?

    Now, we could do that as a free package, but it would be expensive. With a small operation like ours, it has been too hard to raise the amount of money for digitization. We can't go on. We would have a large management problem to consider. But we would never get into one of these things at the expense of free public service.

    The question, though, as a national library, in effect, even if not in name, what should we do? Our problem is a simple one which the Congress can help us determine, really: What should we do for the country?
 Page 201       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Now, it is very clear that we can do more for the educational area. Maybe we should limit ourselves to just the educational package. All I am saying is we have these immense foreign collections. We do the basic cataloging of them, so we have people who read these languages and have an awful lot stored in their heads. Is there some additional use that can be made?

    We already do that, of course, to some extent through the Congressional Research Service for the Congress. We also do it through the Federal Research Division for the executive branch on a sort of cost-recovery basis—an encapsulated operation. Should we have some kind of delivery system or some kind of system that helps the productive private sector, I mean, on a free basis if possible, but on probably a minimal cost-recovery basis as a practical matter? Or should we even think about that?

    Anyhow, my point is that your question is one that comes up now because we are reaching—we will be preparing the budget for the year 2000, and that will be the last year of completing what we have already agreed to. The question is, where do we go from there? So perhaps I should have just given you the short answer, rather than an extended set of possibilities.

    Mr. WALSH. Short answers are always advisable.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. The General is trying to discipline me.

    Mr. FAZIO. Let me give just a few more short questions and no follow-ups. I look forward—I don't actually get to look at it, but I think it would be instructive for the committee to see where, ultimately you take this blue-sky debate about where you are going to put your resources.
 Page 202       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Just to be clear on the procedure, I think we should discuss this among ourselves this spring, and present to the committee sometime later on, and to other congressional bodies,—to the oversight committee, certainly, as well as the appropriators—a range of possibilities to see what, if any, we should explore further.

    Mr. FAZIO. I think it is going to be very tough to decide.


    Just briefly, you are asking for $2.5 million to enhance security. Could you document briefly for us, perhaps General Scott, what the security problem has been over the last 5 years; how much we have lost, what this will do to stem the tide?

    We periodically read about these things in the local paper, but I am wondering if you could document it for us. What are the security problems at the Library?

    General SCOTT. Security at the Library was, I guess—if you take a 5-year view of it, reviewed and analyzed by several outside agencies. Computer Science Corporation came in and helped out, and we had people who did some other studies. They identified some areas that with physical security, and also with security of the collections and offered several recommendations—not several, but as I recall it, there were hundreds of recommendations that came out in all those areas.

    One, and I think a key finding, that came out of that was since the Library had so much material—books and records and film, that dates back almost 200 years—that there had never been a comprehensive inventory, so it was very difficult to really know exactly what you had and where you had it.
 Page 203       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The last year when we were talking to you about supporting and funding the library information system, we had a little chart that showed if you went for a book and it was not on the shelf where we thought it was, it would often take as many as 20 steps just to figure out what happened to it.

    This leads into documenting the losses. Many of the losses that are reported actually are not stolen but they are missing. The magnitude of that is so large that it is very difficult to chase each one of them down to figure it out. But we do have some figures. I would have to make it for the record, since I don't have it right here before me, that show that as we have started to implement. As we have started to implement some of the provisions in our security system, we have tightened up some controls. We have tagged books. We have also tagged items that come into copyright. We have increased the security going in and going out. So therefore, the numbers of items that we detect has risen.

    [The information follows:]

    Based on reports from the Library's Office of the Inspector General, using event data reported to the Library police, statistics for five calendar years, 1993 through 1997, are as follows: in 1993, 26 attempted removals and 59 mutilations; in 1994, 12 attempted removals and 10 mutilations; in 1995, 24 attempted removals and 95 mutilations; in 1996, 20 attempted removals and 149 mutilations; and in 1997 (through August), 13 attempted removals and 221 mutilations. Attempted removals consisted of those items people tried to remove (either intentionally or unintentionally) from the Library but were confiscated by the Library police at building exits. The Library does not assign a dollar value to the attempted removals.
 Page 204       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The fiscal 1999 request implements entry security that is comparable to other Capitol Hill buildings and the application of ownership markers and theft detection devices for Copyright Office materials. Applying ownership markers and installing theft detection devices at the earliest point of entry will reduce the vulnerability of the materials to theft.

    General SCOTT. In that regard, part of the money that we are asking for now for our security would be to purchase scanners and also x-ray machines. We are probably the only building here on Capitol Hill that does not have scanners and x-ray machines. That was a recommendation given to us by the Computer Science Corporation.

    It was also recommended that we upgrade our security system, the electronic security system, because it was getting quite old. There was a recommendation that we do that piece of it.

    There are a number of other items in the budget in support of our security. It totals about $2.5 million. It talks about continuing to upgrade and do a design on the internal security, it talks about putting in reader registration, where you swipe your card through to get identified.

    The bottom line was lack of an inventory, lack of sophisticated equipment to help us, which put a burden on those who were manning the gates, so to speak. In our security plan we have identified what they recommended. We included in the budget those items we think are necessary for this year and that we can't absorb. We are continuing, in accordance with our security plan, to analyze and refine those items that we need to put in the budget for the year 2000.
 Page 205       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FAZIO. What do you assume is going to be your total cost here over time? This is an increment over what period and in what amount?

    General SCOTT. Right. Well, as I said, we have finalized our strategic plan. That goes out to the year 2004. As far as security goes, this year's budget includes some of our top priority items. We know that for the year 2000, there will be more items that follow the recommendations that were made. At present, we have an idea of what the cost will be for an upgraded electronic security system—about $5 million.

    Then there are some other high-priority items that we don't know exactly how much it would cost because we are still in the process of refining them. Within our process we should know by July or August of this year. It is difficult to give you one dollar cost right now for the year 2000.

    [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:]


    Question. What would be an order of magnitude estimate of the additional costs necessary to implement this program?

    Response. For the fiscal 2000 budget, the Library plans to provide an estimate of the costs required to implement the plan's physical security controls. A priority item, estimated to cost approximately $5 million, is upgraded electronic security systems. Two other high priority categories, the costs of which are now being calculated, are to improve physical security of collections processing and storage areas and to improve operational procedures and controls to safeguard collections while in use, i.e., reading room controls, reader registration, etc. As called for in the plan's Integrated Schedule of Actions, the Library will test integrating its bibliographic and inventory controls within the planning framework. This integration will create protection prioritization grids for both of these control areas and identify unmet requirements and needs for future funding. The Library's senior leadership will scrutinize and prioritize these additional control requirements.
 Page 206       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Question. What is the magnitude of the problem you are trying to solve? That is, what is the extent of the problem you are trying to solve?

    Response. The magnitude of the collections security problem is defined by the Library mission, which shapes access to the collections by users and staff. The Library's mission, and hence, it's security plan must ensure that the nation's collection of knowledge and creativity will be available for use by future generations. Unlike a museum, the Library serves items to users—each year serving more than 500,000 readers in the 20 reading rooms in Washington open to the public and responding to nearly one million information requests a year from all over the nation.

    The Library's security direction is to identify threats and vulnerabilities and to implement preventative measures rather than simply reacting to security incidents as they occur. The budget request asks for high priority items, based not only on past incidents but on our assessment of current threats and vulnerabilities.

    Quantifiable indicators of the magnitude of the Library's security problem are limited by the present level of effectiveness of the Library's inventory and bibliographic controls. The Integrated Library System, approved by the Congress, will significantly enhance the Library's inventory and bibliographic control. A 20-year ongoing inventory of the classified general book collection, numbering more than 10 million volumes, has indicated a cumulative missing rate (unaccounted for items in the inventory) of 2.5–3%. The aggressive security tagging program of the existing collection has significantly boosted the number of mutilations discovered, to include 149 in calendar 1996 and 221 in the first eight months of calender 1997. The Security Plan addresses both internal and external threats.
 Page 207       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Question. How many books and other materials have been stolen or vandalized? Over what period of time?

    Response. Based on reports from the Library's Office of the Inspector General, using event data reported to the Library police, statistics for five calendar years, 1993 through 1997, are as follows: in 1993, 26 attempted removals and 59 mutilations; in 1994, 12 attempted removals and 10 mutilations; in 1995, 24 attempted removals and 95 mutilations; in 1996, 20 attempted removals and 149 mutilations; and in 1997 (through August), 13 attempted removals and 221 mutilations. Attempted removals consisted of those items people tried to remove (either intentionally or unintentionally) from the Library but were confiscated by the Library police at building exits. Items mutilated included newspapers, magazines, single pages, and books. It is important to note that the majority of the mutilated books were discovered during the recently accelerated security tagging process, which explains the significant increase in mutilations discovered and reported for the past several years. These figures on mutilation reflect the date reported, not the date on which the mutilation occurred.

    Question. Unless we have a good understanding of the magnitude of the problem, it is impossible to evaluate solutions to solve it. What efforts have you made to measure the extent to which the collections have been stolen or physically mutilated?

    Response. Again, the Library's security direction is to identify threats and vulnerabilities and to implement preventative measures rather than simply reacting to security incidents as they occur. The budget request asks for high priority items, based not only on past incidents but on our assessment of current threats and vulnerabilities.
 Page 208       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The Library has implemented a number of actions to measure the extent of the problem. Beginning in 1978, the Library began conducting a general collections inventory. This inventory shows a missing in inventory rate of approximately 2.5% to 3%. In 1993, several Library staff members conducted a page-by-page examination of art folios, recording each missing page and plate. In September 1996, the Library completed a survey of 5,000 books selected from high-risk areas of the general collections. The randomly selected books were examined cover-to-cover to establish a baseline of their condition. The books will be re-examined over a five-year period to determine the nature of any mutilation to these books or if they were stolen. The Integrated Library System, approved by the Congress and in the process of being implemented, will enable the Library to make more accurate estimates of loss and possibly stolen or mutilated items.

    Question. If a large source of this problem is ''misplacement'', new security measures would not help as much as just improving the handling of the collections. In the past, funds have been provided for inventorying the collections and developing shelflists. Maybe you should evaluate why those efforts did not solve the misplacement problem. Comment?

    Response. A number of factors contribute to misplacement, including the overcrowding in some collections storage areas. This situation will be remedied when off-site storage becomes available and collections are transferred to that site. Some ''misplaced'' items were found during the inventory of the general collections that began in 1978, and such items were returned to their proper place on the shelves. The acquisition of the Integrated Library System will provide a valuable tool for item level control, assisting staff in ascertaining whether an item is truly missing or has been misplaced. But regular ''shelf-reading'', to assure that items have been properly placed on the shelves, is labor-intensive.
 Page 209       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Question. It seems fundamental that the Library needs to measure the extent of the problem you are trying to solve here. Any credible proposal to deal with solutions to theft, mutilation, or misplaced documents must start with a quantitative understanding of the problem. Otherwise we will expend money without any ability to determine its effectiveness. We would like to see a proposal from the Library on this matter.

    Response. The Library strongly concurs that reliable quantitative measures are vital to determining the effectiveness of security controls in place. The Integrated Library System will provide a better mechanism to enable the Library to make calculated assessments of patterns and trends in losses in a large part of its collections. The Library's Security Plan has provided a comprehensive planning framework and Integrated Schedule of Actions that will enable the prioritization of unmet minimal security standards. By addressing these requirements on a priority basis, the Library will implement risk-mitigation measures minimizing the collections' vulnerability to theft and mutilation. The completed baseline survey of 5,000 books will also assist in measuring the extent of mutilation.

    Question. Within your budget request you have asked for an increase of $2,458,331 to enhance security at the library. What has been the total dollar amount of losses due to theft over the past five years?

    Response. The Library's security direction is to identify threats and vulnerabilities and to implement preventative measures rather than simply reacting to security incidents as they occur. The budget request asks for high priority items, based not only on past incidents but on our assessment of current threats and vulnerabilities.
 Page 210       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Based on reports from the Library's Office of the Inspector General, using event data reported to the Library police, statistics for five calendar years, 1993 through 1997, are as follows: in 1993, 26 attempted removals; in 1994, 12 attempted removals; in 1995, 24 attempted removals; in 1996, 20 attempted removals; and in 1997 (through August), 13 attempted removals. Attempted removals consisted of those items people tried to remove (either intentionally or unintentionally) from the Library but were confiscated by the Library police at building exits. The Library does not assign a dollar value to these attempted removals.

    In the past five years, we had one known theft which resulted in the indictment of one Library employee on 22 counts of book theft form 1992 to 1997. In terms of estimating the value of those losses, which were ultimately recovered, we prepared an estimate to support the litigation process. The ''loss estimate'' totaled $25,000: 22 counts involving 27 items, with the items ranging in value from $25 to $10,000.

    Mr. FAZIO. But this is the beginning, not the end, right?

    General SCOTT. This is certainly the beginning.

    Mr. FAZIO. I understand we are going to be hearing from the Registrar of Copyright and CRS.

    Mr. WALSH. If we have time.

    Mr. FAZIO. Are there any other people?
 Page 211       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. CRS and others, books for the blind, also.

    Mr. FAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you.

    Mr. Wamp.

    Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I want to yield for a minute to Mr. Cunningham for a quick question for the record, because he has to go get fitted for his new flight suit as he test flies the new EF–18 this weekend, and I think that is pretty exciting, Top Gun. I will yield to the Top Gun.

    Mr. WALSH. God help us.

    Mr. SERRANO. Is that for our Air Force?

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. What is that? Actually, it is planning the invasion of Puerto Rico, my friend.

    Mr. SERRANO. We did that in 1898.

    Mr. WALSH. Go ahead, Duke.

 Page 212       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You can just provide it for the record, if you would.

    I was recently in San Diego and went down to an organization that dealt with education for the physically impaired. There was a person there that was blind, sight-limited, and he had a software program that as he touched the computer keys, the computer would talk to him. And he had different programs in which he could actually work the computer. And this guy could do it faster than I could, and I am sighted. And if there is any program—if we ever have a hearing on the subject of assistive devices for the visually repaired, I would love to bring this gentleman back.

    If you would just provide for the record information on special education needs, what the Library is doing with the Internet and those kinds of things, I would be interested. My friend works with our Private Industry Council in trying to provide technology to people that are impaired. I have another lady named Holly Candill that is paralyzed from the neck down, but she is working in the same area and looking for ways to improve the lives of people with disabilities.

    If you could provide your answer for the record, I would sure appreciate it. I have to run, and I don't want to infringe on his time. That is why I will ask you it for the record.

    General SCOTT. We certainly will provide that for the record.

    [The information follows:]
 Page 213       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Do you want a brief word from the head of the——

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, I don't, because he would kill me, and I have to run. I am going to fly the EF–18 and I want to be ready.

    Mr. WAMP. Reclaiming my time, Dr. Billington and General Scott, welcome back again this year. You used the word Pollyannaish, a moment ago, Dr. Billington. I want to say to you, I have been using that word for several years.


    Mr. WALSH. Excuse me just for one moment.

    Mr. Cunningham, if you could hold for one minute, we have a motion that we have to put on the floor, now that we have a quorum, that we can eliminate very quickly if you will just wait one minute.

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to.

    Mr. WALSH. We will return to this as soon as we finish.

    I apologize, if we could proceed out of order for a moment. Mr. Serrano has a motion that he would like to place before us.
 Page 214       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I guess I have my script here.

    Mr. SERRANO. The explanation.

    Mr. WALSH. The Sergeant at Arms has requested that we enter executive session for a portion of the Capitol Police Board-Capital Police appropriations hearing. He indicates that sensitive law enforcement information will be discussed. Under committee rules it will be necessary to vote on this matter. I recognize Mr. Serrano for the purpose of making a motion.

    Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to hold a portion of the Capitol Police Board-Capitol Police appropriations hearing in executive session at such time as the Chairman determines.

    Mr. WALSH. Under the committee rules, this motion is not debatable. This vote will be recorded. All those in favor of the motion vote ''aye,'' all opposed no.

    None being opposed—we are going to do a rollcall. The Clerk will call the roll.

    The CLERK. Mr. Cunningham.

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Aye.
 Page 215       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The CLERK. Mr. Fazio.

    Mr. FAZIO. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Hoyer.

    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Latham.

    Mr. LATHAM. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Livingston.

    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Obey.

    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Serrano.

    Mr. SERRANO. Aye.

 Page 216       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    The Clerk. Mr. Walsh.

    Mr. WALSH. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Wamp.

    Mr. WAMP. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Young.

    [No response.]

    Mr. WALSH. The motion is carried on a vote of six ''ayes'' and none opposed. The motion is adopted.

    Mr. LATHAM. Six is a quorum?

    Mr. WALSH. Yes, that's correct.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Wamp, the floor is yours.

    Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back to my four points. You used the word Pollyannaish. I must say as someone who has used that word for many years without knowing if it is proper, it is very reassuring for the Librarian to use the word Pollyannaish, and I will proceed in the future using that word.
 Page 217       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The second thing I want to recognize is it is good for me to be back here in my second year and see each of you, and all of your support team back here, but also I want to recognize very briefly Vic Fazio. This is the first time we come back for our final set of hearings under his leadership, and frankly, 4 years ago the guy came into my district and campaigned against me, and now I really like him. So that is what——

    Mr. FAZIO. I got the message and never went back.

    Mr. WAMP. I just wanted from this side of the aisle to say that this place will miss Vic Fazio, and he is really committed to excellence. I think he serves this Congress very well. I know this is going to be a yearlong event for him, with people praising him, but I wanted to start right here recognizing his leadership and knowing that this is the last time that the Library of Congress will come before him on this committee and ask for their priorities, and give their—give him their input.

    I think he is very methodical and should be commended for his service here.

    Mr. FAZIO. Thank you.

    Mr. WAMP. Also, I want to say that in now my annual tradition, I was a book consumer from Thanksgiving to Christmas; while I was back in Tennessee, I read four books, one of which I checked out and returned to the Library of Congress. And I just want to thank you, really, for a job well done across the board.
 Page 218       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    A 6.5 percent increase obviously is more than inflation. I realize some of this is mandatory and we can't get around it. So we have to swallow hard when we are looking at the numbers. But frankly, you all in my opinion are one of our examples of effective delivery to people, and I commend you very much.

    I want to just for a moment think out of the box, because the year 2000 problem, as a relatively young guy, to me still blows my mind that we are almost there and this problem still faces us. I don't want to talk about that because I know you are doing all you can, and so is the rest of the country, because we are in a hurried-up offense. This is really difficult here to even pull this off in time.


    Mr. WAMP. But let us think just a minute. Twenty years down the road, through Thomas and our archives—you all have now just about automated the Congress, which it was not before. You are kind of leading the way. Let us think, if we are in 2018 and this committee meets, do we do this then by video teleconference? Do we vote electronically? Where is the Library of Congress in this picture?

    I say that because, frankly, I think it is about time, with technology happening as quick as it is before our very eyes, that we begin discussing where are we going to be and what plans are we making. The Library of Congress, frankly, if we look—historically now, we are about there. With the present, we are about there. What about the future? Where are we going?
 Page 219       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I mean, frankly, it is not very efficient for us to come and go. Can't we vote electronically in a generation? I don't know. Maybe we don't want to. This is a wonderful room. You can experience this, and it is second to none. But there may be a time and place. Is the Library of Congress doing anything to prepare us for 20 years from now?

    General SCOTT. I think this is tailor made, because we had talked about our vision and where should the Library go, and what should the Library do, and how should we serve our customers. I do think that we have opened a dialogue that sorely needs some input from the Congress. We are your library, and we serve the people who sent you here.

    That is a good segue for me to say that the Librarian does have a vision. I think it would be useful for you to hear a capsule of that vision, to show you what we are thinking about with respect to serving you and your constituents in the future.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. To try to deal directly with your question, we have a rare opportunity at the Library of Congress—to integrate the new electronic world with the old world of books and memory.

    The danger of thinking about everything electronically is that it is memory-erasing, first of all, because its databases constantly need to be brought up to date. There is no memory intrinsically. That is why putting ''An American Memory'' into this, I think, was a good start, because you have new technology which you have to master but you have old experience that you have to integrate into it.

 Page 220       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    I do not think rooms like this and bodies like this are going to be outmoded. We decided at the beginning of this Republic not to have a plebiscitary system. I don't know how you could do it very well.

    Mr. WAMP. What is that word?

    Dr. BILLINGTON. In other words, when you have representative government, you don't have plebiscites on everything.

    Mr. FAZIO. Only in California.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. You could theoretically resolve everything electronically. You know, here is a bill, and you push a button. For example, the minute after somebody has spoken on television, there is an ABC poll that tells you that 63 percent of the people think that was a good idea that the guy just presented.

    Well, there is no deliberation, there is no consideration of what the context was, what the alternative ideas are, and so forth. It was all, who wears the brightest colored tie on ''The McNeil-Lehrer Hour.'' It is not even that which is relatively deliberative. It is not the same as having a body like this that is elected by people, not simply to be a pass-through for electronic signals, but to be a deliberative body.

    So I think the role of the Library of Congress is going to be one of knowledge navigators, people who are going to be guiding their way through this so that you can be responsible deliberators in the future, because you will need some kind of dependable filters so that you are not just jagged by whoever has hired the best ad firm last week.
 Page 221       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The Library's Treasures exhibit is organized as Jefferson's library was. Jefferson had the first system for organizing knowledge in this country, even before the Dewey decimal system, which was later succeeded by the Library of Congress system. Jefferson's library followed memory, reason, and imagination. Our ''Treasures of America'' exhibit, a permanent exhibit, is organized into those three categories—memory, reason, and imagination. Those are also the qualities that individual people have.

    Machines are reasonably good at certain types of reasoning, but not all kinds of reasoning. They are not very reliable mediators of memory in and of themselves, and they don't have very much imagination. I think, you know, that Jefferson's system is pretty durable, and it is important that this system master and domesticate the new technologies and not simply be overwhelmed by it. That is what, hopefully, we will be able to do for you. But it is going to be a daunting challenge.

    But I think my own view is that the importance of judgment, values, deliberation—representing different visceral interests that our kind of system of government was set up to do—is going to be more significant than ever, so that we are not overwhelmed by the Frankenstein we have created.

    I think we ought to let Dan Mulhollan, head of CRS, have a word on this one, because I know that CRS has been doing particularly forward-looking thinking on this particular issue.

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. Particularly, Jim Billington and Don Scott had a 1-day retreat for all the executive committee of the Library approximately 8 weeks ago. They said, where is technology taking the Library of Congress in the year 2010?
 Page 222       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We asked one of my colleagues who specializes in Congress about the future of Congress, basically—how are Members of Congress going to be doing their work in the next millenium—what will the Congress look like in the future? And there was a 1997 political science panel that has been involved in this question as well. The whole question is, when we look at the decisions about the direction of the LIS, decisions and proposals for our CRS reports, they have implications because so much is technology-driven.

    It is really quite clear that the deliberations of Congress are changing. When you have amendments immediately being brought up to the floor with more information available, it impacts the ways of the consideration of measures by the Senate and the House. We have more and more information immediately available on markups as well as a result of technology changes.

    We do know from democratic theory that democratic systems can go on overload if there is too much input, and one has to be very cautious about the implications of stressing our current representational structure. We are looking at this. We are trying to plan ahead, and there are a number of consequences. Policy should drive technology, not technology policy.

    Mr. WAMP. Thank you.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. I think what you are going to see in the year 2010 or 2020 is going to be that information and data will be totally electronically provided, instantaneously available. Theoretically it will free us up and will free you up a little more than you are freed up now. Now you have to do a lot of inefficient sorting through material. That will be much more efficiently sortable and efficiently retrievable.
 Page 223       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    But at the same time, the big issues and questions of policy are going to involve judgment and values and memory and qualities that only people will have and only the clash of opinions of elected representatives are going to be able to resolve.

    I think this is amazing. We are the oldest continuously functioning, written, constitutionally-based system in the world. It has survived an awful lot of change. This country has gone through fantastic changes in 200 years. It is going to go through a lot more. But what I think may be missing and what I hope we can provide that we have not talked about is more of the high-quality intellect that is dispersed all around this country.

    As it is now, you tend to see only advocacy-oriented intellect here. You need to get the deep thinkers together with the deep legislators. And I hope that that building——

    Mr. WAMP. As opposed to shallow legislators?

    Mr. SERRANO. As opposed to legislators who are also thinkers.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. I think one of the great things about restoring the Jefferson building—another thing that we owe to Mr. Fazio and his colleagues, who had the vision to see that this was worth doing—is that the building itself is an expression of American exuberance and optimism, a belief that the applied use of knowledge can keep the system self-correcting and self-improving.

 Page 224       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    We should attract more of the people who don't just come here to sell a product or to express an opinion that everybody knows about in advance but, rather, to get a little more of the traffic of high intellectual value.

    I hope we can generate what we are thinking of calling something like a congressional knowledge center here, and get some of the great thinkers here so that you are exposed to them. Not simply to get their opinions or their briefs on a legislative issue—that is fine, too. An important part of the advocacy process is to be exposed to people of rare judgment and perspective, of whom we have a lot.

    There are half a million students in the colleges of America from foreign countries. They all want to come here and tap into our knowledge. But I do not think you are getting necessarily the best of that knowledge. You are getting a lot of advocacy products, but you will need more in the future, because the questions of judgment and values are going to be more important.

    You need to have people who are just pure resources on judgment and value, and not simply inefficient computers retaining a lot of facts and figures. The facts and figures will be at your fingertips with the computers and electronic technology of tomorrow. Hopefully the Library of Congress and Congressional Research Service and other services at your disposal will be efficient and fair mediators of all that information.

    But I think the one missing piece will be intellectual. I think the Jefferson building can serve as an enormous magnet to bring some of the great scholars and thinkers that we have to Washington. We have a large number of scholars in this country, many of whom have never been to Washington. You don't want just the people who are anxious to come here.
 Page 225       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SERRANO. That is why they are still thinking.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. You don't want to have them necessarily here all the time, but coming through, so you have a chance to meet them informally, and give you a chance to have that kind of contact.

    And they need better contact with the people who make up our government, too. I sat on university campuses for 18 years, and in faculty rooms, they have strange ideas about what goes on sometimes. So it is good and it is healthy for the country to have interaction between the world of affairs and the world of ideas. You are not always getting the best thinkers, the deepest thinkers here, so I hope we can add that as well as provide you very efficient, up-to-date electronic information.

    I don't think the system, I don't think rooms like this, and deliberations like this can be replaced. Maybe you will have a Librarian who doesn't talk quite so long and is a little more efficient in the future, but I think the system, as set up, is pretty durable.

    Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.

    Mr. Latham.

    Mr. LATHAM. Have you talked about the copyright arbitration?
 Page 226       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. We have not.

    Mr. LATHAM. At all, the decision.

    Mr. WALSH. If you would like to ask about that, we have the Register here.

    Mr. LATHAM. Is Dan going to——

    Mr. WALSH. We anticipated bringing Mr. Mulhollan up after the Librarian was completed, but feel free, maybe we can wrap it up sooner that way.


    Mr. LATHAM. You recently approved a rate increase, as recommended by the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, that took effect, January 1st, 1998. That increase resulted in great increases to the cost of direct and satellite TV service to my rural constituents. I just want to know what the basis for the panel's recommendation was to initiate such a large rate increase, and your rationale, for upholding the decision.

    Mr. WALSH. Let me introduce the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters. Welcome to the table.

    Ms. PETERS. The short answer——
 Page 227       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. Perhaps Marybeth should give the short answer.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Do you want the long answer from me?

    General SCOTT. You can summarize.

    Ms. PETERS. The short answer is the standard that is in the law for satellite rates is very different than the standard is for cable; the satellite standard is new—it is fair market value. The arbitrators used a fair market value standard that resulted in significantly higher rates.

    The Copyright Office reviewed that decision under an arbitrary or contrary-to-law standard, and we cannot say that what the panel did is arbitrary or contrary to law. You may not like the standard, but it is not contrary to what is in the law. The decision is now on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

    The parties sought a stay to not have the new rates go into effect. The Court has already denied that; the full case will be heard by the Court. There are bills in Congress to set that rate aside, and the issue will be debated in the months ahead. Fair market value is the standard that is in the law. That may not make you happy, but it is the rate, as opposed to another rate, that Congress set.

    Mr. LATHAM. Is there a short answer, too?

 Page 228       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Dr. BILLINGTON. The short answer is the differential in the rates is derived from the different standards that are established by law for the two means of delivery. In other words, the two different areas of satellite and cable have different standards, which, by law, are established for setting up the rates, and, therefore, unless it is contrary to the law, or arbitrary, neither of which I judged it to be, or the Register did, that we can't set the ruling aside. It is a question of changing the law, rather than changing the rates——

    Mr. LATHAM. I just wanted to ask, in a rural area, where a lot of my constituents have dishes and that is their only access, a large majority of my people do not have access to cable, so it is really a rifle shot at the rural population, with the huge increase, and I just want to put emphasis on that fact.

    Ms. PETERS. The Copyright Office is already on record saying where what is being delivered is exactly the same, the method of delivering should not bring about a difference in payment. In order to have that result come about, then Congress has got to change the law.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Mr. Chairman, were you going to have Dan testify? I will wait and submit my questions. Thank you.

    Mr. WALSH. I believe that completes the questioning. I do have some additional questions, but the hour is late so I would like to submit those for the record and give you an opportunity to respond back.
 Page 229       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [Questions from Chairman Walsh and responses follow:]


    Question. Do you have authority to adjust your registration fees to compensate for this receipt reduction?

    Response. This question is best answered in two parts. First, the Copyright Office plans to use its spending authority to project an additional $1 million in receipts from new higher based discretionary fee charges, new deposit account interest receipts, and growth in current registration fee receipts. Second, the President signed the Technical Amendments Act, P.L. No. 105–80 into law on November 13, 1997, providing the Office with the authority to adjust its statutory fees pursuant to conducting a cost study and final review by the Congress. However, the fiscal 1999 budget does not anticipate additional receipts from an increase in statutory fees because of the time it will take to implement a new fee structure. Statutory fees increases will be incorporated into the fiscal 2000 budget.

    Question. It may be necessary to expedite your fee schedule study. It will be very difficult to get a $2 million increase in this appropriation. What can you do to expedite the process?

    Response. The Technical Amendments Act, P.L. No. 105–80, gave the Office the authority to change statutory fees on the basis of conducting a cost study and sending Congress a proposed new fee schedule with accompanying economic analysis. After receiving the material, Congress has 120 days to approve (by taking no action) or disprove (by passing legislation). The cost study was recently completed and the Office is in the process of carefully reviewing that study, providing an economic analysis and recommending a proposed fee schedule. This schedule needs to be communicated to the copyright community and comments from copyright industries, authors' groups and other affected parties need to be carefully considered before a proposed fee schedule is presented to Congress. It is difficult for the Copyright Office to accurately predict if statutory fee increases in fiscal 1999 will be able to absorb the additional $2.2 million requested in net appropriations. There is a high level of uncertainty that revenue projections will be met because of the historical decline in demand for these services when fees are increased and the rush to register before the fees go up. It is therefore, critical for the Office to have a transitional period to accurately forecast changes in demand. Information learned in this transitional period will enable the Office to more accurately project receipts for fiscal 2000.
 Page 230       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [A question and response from Mr. Cunningham follow:]


    Question. Congress is contemplating legislation to change the copyright laws as they relate to the revolution in telecommunications, and the ability to transmit just about anything around the globe with a few computer keystrokes. This bill, H.R. 3048, introduced by Reps. Boucher and Campbell, makes significant changes in the Copyright Act, and changes U.S. practices to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. Knowing that you do not take positions for or against legislation, could you give up your perspective on how the current situation and this bill would affect the work of the Copyright Office?

    Response. H.R. 3048 is a wide-ranging bill that would make changes in eight separate areas of U.S. copyright law. Although the bill would have a significant impact on the substance of copyright law, its impact on the work of the Copyright Office would be minimal. The bill makes no changes affecting the Office's administration of the Copyright Act.

    If H.R. 3048 were to become law, we anticipate that the primary role of the Copyright Office in its implementation would be in the area of public education. The Office, through its Information and Reference Division, prepares written materials on copyright law for dissemination to the public. Some of these materials would require updating, and we might need to prepare some additional materials to educate the public about the changes to the Copyright Act. Moreover, our employees who respond to public inquiries concerning copyright law would have to be trained in the substance of the new law.
 Page 231       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In addition, section 1202(c)(6) of H.R. 3048 authorizes the Copyright Office to prescribe by regulation certain identifying information concerning copyrighted works that may be contained in copyright management information protected under the bill. The Office would have to conduct a rulemaking proceeding in order to implement this portion of the bill. In this respect H.R. 3048 does not differ from the other proposals pending before Congress concerning implementation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

    Finally, one point of clarification regarding the role of the Copyright Office appears to be in order. Unlike the Congressional Research Service, the Copyright Office does take positions supporting or opposing legislation. These positions are based on our nonpartisan policy analysis, taking into consideration the underlying goals of U.S. copyright law. The Office has not, however, taken a position on H.R. 3048.

    In summary, the impact of this bill on the work of the Copyright Office would be minimal, and would, in our view, have a negligible effect on the Copyright Office budget.

    Are there any other questions of the Librarian or the Deputy Librarian at this point?

    Mr. SERRANO. I will be submitting a question for the record.

    [A question from Mr. Serrano and response follow:]

 Page 232       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Question. Dr. Billington, in the past we have discussed the need to develop a detailed documentary record of the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. As the issues of self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico and the status of the Island have gained attention in Congress, this need is greater than before. Would you tell the Committee for the record about the Library's activities in this area over the last year or so?

    Response. The Library's Hispanic Division prepared the publication, ''Hispanic Americans in Congress'', 1822–1995 (1995), at the request of Congressman José Serrano, and mounted the information on the Hispanic Division's Home Page. Fourteen of the 61 members listed in the biographic directory served as Puerto Rican Commissioners, and one currently is representing Puerto Rico in the U.S. Congress. In May 1997, the Hispanic Division began planning the digitization of Puerto Rican materials in order to share the Library's rich collections and providing research materials for students through the World Wide Web. Two parallel projects are in preparation:

    The World and Puerto Rico in 1898 will feature a comprehensive chronology from approximately 1868 through 1900 illustrated with photographs of salient personalities, landscapes, and battle scenes; maps; printed texts; and manuscripts. These materials will be linked to relevant manuscripts, i.e. letters, diaries, etc. containing comments about Puerto Rican affairs in the collections of Theodore Roosevelt, Nicholas M. Butler, John Benson Foraker, etc.

    We are adding to the home page finding aids to various collections relating to this period, as well as title pages of salient books and journals. Relevant materials to Puerto Rico 1898 already up in American Memory will be hot-linked to the chronology as will the Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division's listing of films of the Spanish-American War.
 Page 233       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The American Memory Project for Puerto Rico will be made up of books related to Puerto Rican culture, history and biography published before 1925 (full texts of about 40 books are being digitized); the Alice Gould Puerto Rican Memorial Collection of rare nineteenth century pamphlets; and the Archive of Hispanic Literature on Tape, which contains literary recordings by 20 Puerto Rican poets and prose writers. The Spanish-American War Digitization Project features a general chronology with digitized texts about Cuba, and Spanish materials on the Philippines and Guam. The Spanish-American War will be hot-linked to the Puerto Rican Project, mentioned above. The Hispanic Division co-sponsored with the Governor of Puerto Rico's office on November 9, 1997, Evening of Puerto Rican Women Poets Reading Their Poetry in the Library of Congress. The Hispanic Division co-sponsored with the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Commission an evening of Parranda de Octavitas on January 9, 1998, at the Library of Congress. The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped has a regional library in Puerto Rico, which served nearly 15,000 readers in the last fiscal year.

    Mr. FAZIO. Same here, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you very much for your testimony.

    We have with us, in addition, Mr. Mulhollan with Congressional Research Service; Marybeth Peters, who just addressed us, from the Copyright Office and also Mr. Kurt Cylke, Director of the National Library Services, which operates books for the blind and physically handicapped.

    Why don't we give Mr. Mulhollan the opportunity to make an opening statement, if he has one to make, then we will give everyone the opportunity to ask any of those three individuals a question, and proceed in that matter.
 Page 234       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. Mulhollan, Director of CRS is here, together with Ms. Angela Evans, Deputy Director. The CRS budget is $68.5 million, an increase of $3.9 million and 20 more FTEs. Why don't we just proceed, Mr. Mulhollan, if you would like to make a brief opening statement.


    Mr. MULHOLLAN. I have a short summary of the written statement I submitted for the record. I am pleased to be here today and I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about the 1999 budget request for CRS. I would like to assure you that we will continue to focus our efforts on offering support to the legislative work for the Congress within the fiscal decisions you make.

    Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 made it the statutory mission of the Congressional Research Service to provide the Congress with, and I quote, ''analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of legislative proposals,'' and estimating the probable results of such proposals and evaluating alternative methods for accomplishing those results.

    In other words, as actually another Member of the New York delegation says, Congress faces the problem of unintended consequences when it passes legislation. We are here to help you with that problem. The budget we submit for your consideration today is based on our statutory mission. To fulfill that mission, it is vital we maintain, without further diminution, our analytical and research capacity.

 Page 235       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    To do this, we seek funding for three purposes. The first and most significant item is funding for mandatory personnel costs of the legislative civil service. Our staff constitutes 90 percent of our budget. The second purpose is our succession initiative, which is designed to address a threat to our research and analytic capacity as more CRS staff become eligible to retire.

    As early as the year 2000, we will experience diminished capacity in a growing number of subject areas, including civil rights, transportation, crime and criminal justice programs, global climate change, monetary affairs and national security. By 2006, staff losses will affect virtually all areas of legislative support CRS provides to the Congress.

    The third part of our budget request is funding to cover price level increases for non personals which support the conduct of our research and the delivery of our products. With this budget request, I am confident we will be able to continue to provide the same high quality services within current fiscal constraints.

    In my written statement, I note that I provide you an update on technology. I won't elaborate here. I just want to state the Service remains committed to assisting the House and Senate to refine the legislative information retrieval system. We continue to work closely with both Houses of Congress and the Library to enhance the LIS so we can replace previous systems by the start of the next Congress.

    As my written statement emphasizes, we are making every effort to concentrate CRS resources on direct service to the Congress and take full advantage of existing and emerging technologies. It is, therefore, my responsibility to call your attention to possible consequences of a proposal which, if adopted, could divert our focus significantly away from the immediate needs of Members and committees.
 Page 236       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Legislation was introduced last week to make entire inventories of certain CRS products, notably reports and issue briefs, directly available to the general public, in fact, to the world, via the Internet. The decision is, of course, yours, the Congress. But as our oversight committees and Congress as a whole consider the issue, I believe it is important to take into account the implication of a major change in congressional policy.


    Historically, constituents have gone to their Member of Congress when they have questions about legislation. As such, Congress has reserved for itself the distribution of CRS products to the public. To ensure this representational goal is carried out exclusively by Members, Congress has for many years included a provision in CRS annual appropriations, precluding us from publishing our products without congressional approval.

    Wholesale direct public dissemination of CRS products would bypass this long standing relationship between Members and their constituents. CRS believes such wholesale direct dissemination could have serious consequences for the Service, for our resource allocation, for our institutional culture, and for the legal framework within which we serve the Congress.

    Such dissemination would require us to divert scarce resources away from our statutory mission. Our analysts would inevitably shift the focus of their work from the concerns of Congress to address the very different perspectives and interests of the public issue advocacy groups, professional peers, and other organizations.

 Page 237       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Additionally, dissemination would bring into question the availability of speech or debate clause protection which undermines the presumption of confidentiality. This is so crucial to our relationship with the Congress. And, it will limit our ability to use copyrighted material. I would like to submit for the record a recent study that provides more detail on this important issue.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    In summary, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, CRS submits a budget that takes into account efforts throughout the legislative branch to adapt to continuing fiscal constraints. The goal of this budget request is to fulfill our statutory mission. I would be pleased to discuss any issues in detail and answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you. I have just two questions. In your budget request, the discussion and the implementation of the succession initiative is mentioned, the Librarian mentioned it also, as being very important, and the concept is very sound. The question that I have is, what is your FTE level, authorized level right now?


    Mr. MULHOLLAN. 747.
 Page 238       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. Your current payroll is what, in terms of the number?

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. Right now I think we have—on board right now roughly 728. Every pay period that can change, because, of course, full-time equivalent is derived from paid hours worked. It is a useful accounting device, but we have a number of postings in place that would raise that closer to 747—much closer to that number.

    Mr. WALSH. Fairly simple math would get you to almost 20 positions very quickly, within current authorized levels.

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. It is my understanding in fact, we currently would not have the funding to maintain 747 FTEs at our average salary level.

    Mr. WALSH. You don't really need additional authorization for more FTEs, you just need more money, basically.

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. For this year, that is correct. That would not be the case in the following year. But right now if I understand it correctly, the committee has not established a ceiling per se. Rather, the FTE number estimates how many full-time staff could be supported by the budget.

    Mr. WALSH. Do you intend to use any of these positions that are about to be filled to begin to implement your succession plan.
 Page 239       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. The positions we will fill I can provide for the record, if you would like. Under the Graduate Recruit Program we have announced 15 positions. These represent our highest priority positions at this point, within the resources you have given us for this fiscal year.

    Mr. WALSH. I believe we funded 747 positions last year.

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, for fiscal year 1997, we did not fill all those positions. We have approximately 740 altogether, including, those that are currently posted. We shifted, in fiscal 1997, a number of monies to contracts, to supplement staff expertise for a number of things.

    Mr. WALSH. So you opted to use those personnel funds for other needs within your budget, and that was a decision that the manager made.

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. That is correct. What we have for this coming year, under the Graduate Recruit are analysts in public finance, industry and finance, income maintenance, social security, immigration, natural resources policy, and agriculture policy. This is under current monies you have given us. We will be bringing people in for this summer on a competitive basis and we had very significant success with diversity in those positions in the past.

    Mr. WALSH. I don't mean to oversimplify, but you made a conscious decision that those were higher priorities than the succession plan.
 Page 240       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. During that fiscal year, we had to shift money for a number of positions into technology at that point. The Succession Plan is still the highest priority of the service in the long-term.

    Mr. WALSH. Is the number, 20, an absolutely must have or think you need to have or—how would you qualify that?

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. The number 20 for the first year and 60 for the whole succession plan is just part of a pool of identified people, 249 analysts, lawyers, and reference librarians that are leaving, so it is 24 percent of that total pool. This is only one of a number of things we are doing in CRS. We are looking at creative details, and with cooperation of our union, having people shift from lower priority to higher priority work within the Service itself, we are doing educational programs where we continue sending people to the war college, industrial college, to develop capacities within the organization.

    This effort is just one of a number of programs that we are trying to do to be able to work within the resources you have given us. Any help that the Committee can provide would be of obvious help, given the size of the number of people who will be leaving. And may I add, we have unique historical circumstances that we face. After the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act was enacted, we were expanded by 2.5 times at that point, to meet Congress' needs for its own analytical capacities after finding, the door closed to Executive Branch information in a number of areas during the time of Watergate and Vietnam. A lot of the people hired then stayed. These people who are retiring are the people who built CRS as it is today.

 Page 241       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Secondly, there was significant reduction of legislative branch resources from fiscal year 1992 through the current legislative year. In CRS, we lost almost 100 people during that period of time, so we weren't backfilling during the time. So it is a combination of a sizeable expansion of an agency, during that time and subsequent downsizing that creates the need for such a succession plan.

    Mr. WALSH. If the Committee were able to provide you with additional funded positions, would those absolutely be put into the succession plan?

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. Exactly.

    Mr. WALSH. That is a guarantee.

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. Yes, sir.

    Mr. WALSH. My other question related to the idea that Chris Shays has put forward and Senator McCain has also. First of all, this Committee would not make—this Subcommittee would not make that decision. It is an authorizing decision, as I understand it, and I am hopeful they will deal with it—they will give us some direction, rather than have us, at the end of this year, react to an initiative in the other body that really doesn't come through the normal process. What do you see as the largest pitfall to opening up CRS reports?

    I mean, the prevailing argument, obviously, is information is power and the more information people have, the more power they have, the more direct involvement they have, but what is the potential for abuse, if there is any, or if that is not the pitfall, what is it?
 Page 242       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [A question for the record from Mr. Cunningham and response follow:]


    Question. In FY98, you presented and Congress rejected your proposed succession initiative, to hire new people for a significant period to overlap analytical staff slated for retirement. I know we all appreciate your desire—our desire—to sustain the intellectual capital of CRS. However, Congress rejected that proposal. Now you present it again in FY99. To my knowledge, the rather costly initiative you propose is not the general practice of business, the university, federal agencies, research institutions or congressional or committee offices themselves. What has changed to suggest that Congress should adopt this succession initiative this year, when we did not last year?

    Response. We have resubmitted the succession initiative for fiscal 1999 funding for a number of reasons. First, we understood that Congress' decision not to fund the succession initiative last year did not necessarily speak to the merits of the proposal but rather reflected the severe budgetary constraints on the Legislative Branch budget for fiscal 1998. Second, in many dozens of meetings I have had with Members over the last year, I have heard great concern over the impending loss of CRS experts on whom Members rely. In addition, many Members have expressed their support for the initiative the Service has shown to deal with this serious problem, as well as for the specifics of the plan. While we recognize that budget constraints are still a concern, as we move a year closer to those retirements, it is our responsibility to address such concern of Members, and to avoid, if at all possible, a significant reduction in our analytic support to Members.
 Page 243       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In developing the succession initiative, we have looked at other agencies, research institutions and businesses and did find succession models which focused on executive leadership development. We contacted agencies involved in the National Association of Public Administration (NAPA) study on Managing Succession and Developing Leadership: Growing the Next Generation of Public Service Leaders. We also looked at such highly regarded companies as, Motorola, Westinghouse, AT&T, Corning Glass, Hewlett Packard, Procter and Gamble. Because CRS senior analysts serve as the policy leaders for the Service in their issue areas, many of the elements of these plans are relevant. While no one model was a perfect match for CRS' circumstances, we used some common features of these plans which helped us with our plan development: e.g., mentoring, team-building, development of professional networks, communication and support of organizational values, and rotational assignments.

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. My basic concerns, as identified by our statutory mission is, we are here to help the Member of Congress in his or her job to represent their constituency. I believe that, in fact, it is an increasingly difficult job to do, because of the multiplicity of issues that have to be managed and the complexities of them. But at the same time, I think under representational democracy, as I mentioned before, it is important for the constituent to go to the Member.

    We encourage Members of Congress to use our material. In the survey we did last week, 350 Members of the House have Web sites. Some Members put up CRS reports on their Web site. That is terrific. That means we are there to help them. The Member makes the decision, the duly elected Member makes the decision to place the document up there. But two things are important. Members value knowing what kind of questions are being asked, on legislation, and with direct dissemination that may be missing, as well as the fact that it is the Member who is accountable.
 Page 244       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    There is no direct accountability of the Congressional Research Service to the electorate. I believe that, in fact, direct dissemination could erode that connection between Members and constituents, and the loss of control of the voter which may be the most profound implication. There is also a threat to the speech and debate protection for the Service that has been the underpinning of our confidential role for the Congress.

    I am very concerned about any possible erosion of that confidential role because in the end, you can feel confident asking us whatever you need as an extension of staff because you know we are completely confidential. You do not want, 4 years from now a confidential memo that I sent to you or to anyone here at the table to be on a court docket as a result of a discovery for litigation. The judgment of our counsels is that in fact there may be a threat under the current court rulings that have increasingly narrowed speech and debate protection to the legislative act.

    The courts have continued to say, because we serve solely Congress, we are protected by that. If we added another public mission at a time when the legislative branch is downsizing, I think there is a question of concern. I understand the motivation of Members wanting to get information out, and we will work with Members to provide whatever they want to provide to their constituents. Again, it is Congress making the decision.

    Mr. WALSH. With that, Mr. Serrano.

    Mr. SERRANO. I have no questions, just one comment. I was also somewhat concerned about the question you just asked about this information. And I know it is a tricky thing because on one hand you don't want to withhold information from the public, but, on the other hand, that information is provided for our use and how we wish to let it out is a different situation.
 Page 245       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I can tell you, for instance, in the last 2 years, leading up to, hopefully, this year's vote on the floor, on a bill to allow Puerto Rico to determine its political future, many studies have been done on what citizenship would mean, what statehood would mean if it came in, and would they bring in Federal taxes within 24 hours, would there be a transition period. I can tell you that issue, unfortunately, is so politicized that if every word CRS wrote on research was put out, it would have created a situation totally out of control. Granted, somebody hearing me would say you are afraid of information being out.

    Mr. WALSH. That is the problem.

    Mr. SERRANO. That is the problem, but it is information we generate by asking for it, you know, and I think what would happen, if they knew everything would be public, people would watch what they were asking for and we would debate with much less information than we have now. Or else you have some fully-cooked, ready-for-consumption information floating out there. So I have that concern also. But I am one of those who uses your Service and will be using it during this debate this year.

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. Thank you.

    Mr. WALSH. Mr. Latham.

    Mr. LATHAM. I guess, as a more junior member of the Committee, who does not have extra staff paid for by the Committee, I am very jealous of keeping CRS as staff, because I don't have the additional staff person that you are blessed with. If you want to give one up, I would sure take it. But it is a real concern. And I certainly share your concern.
 Page 246       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I think the arguments you make about the confidence between the dialogue with staff and the confidence issue is very, very important, as far as I am concerned, so I would hope that we could be successful, and we will certainly work to try to defeat those types of changes. Isn't it a fact, you say it was part of the authorizing, the responsibility of the authorizing committee, we had a prohibition in the appropriations bill.

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. Since 1952, that is correct, sir.

    Mr. LATHAM. In fact, we have had some role over the years, so I would hope we could continue that.

    I also share your real concern about the quality and staffing levels that you have, because you can't do as good a job as if staff is providing you with some good information. We might as well disburse it everywhere because it won't be of much value to anyone.

    I think the quality of the work of the CRS has been tremendous, and that is by far your biggest asset, and, you know, I think it is essential that we replace these people, and we are in an unusual situation with 1970 and being hit at one time.

    In the conversation we had, you had talked about continuity in the future. Would you go into that a little bit, about how we are not just creating another dip down the road 20 years from now again?

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, one of the things we had in planning this is that it is a 3-year plan, and it is only a portion of a number of efforts, including detailing, we are working on it. We are enhancing our capacity for a period of time, but the commitment is to go down to the current FTE level 747. So it is basically overlapping a 5-year—5 years and 5 years and 5 years, and by 2006 we are committed to reducing our staff back to the same full-time equivalent level as we are today.
 Page 247       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LATHAM. Are we going to have the same problem in 25 years?

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. No, because of the combination that it is only a portion of the additional hires are of that cohort at 249, as well as the fact that it is spread over a more significant time and that we are using alternative methods as well. It is part of a packaged program trying to manage this in a responsible way.

    Mr. LATHAM. Your plan is to not only address the immediate needs, but also to eliminate the problem in the future.

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. That is correct, and, again, to Mr. Wamp's question, we are continually looking at how you will be working in the future and how we will be there to assist. One of the problems with specifying the Web site to be presented to the public that is currently in the proposed legislation is that technology is changing. Web sites are no longer presenting information as a narrative driven by an author, it is a question and answer forum, more and more you will be in dialogue with our experts. Our Web site was never meant to be a document delivery system primarily, and in the future it will likely be less and less as such.

    Mr. LATHAM. Okay. I just reiterate my appreciation for what you do, and I think for someone who is short staffed, it is a tremendous asset, I will tell you. That is all.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Page 248       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. WALSH. You made your points very clearly, Mr. Latham. We will make sure it is in the record.

    Mr. Fazio.

    Mr. FAZIO. Two questions related to this, briefly. One, how is the internship program working in terms of turning up recruits? Are we getting a high percentage of people who would then fall under your apprenticeship program? And, secondly, and you may want to answer this together, how are we going to decide what services to eliminate? I know when we lose some of these people, we lose, in some cases, institutional memory that has to be replaced, but we also have a shift in priorities, people are asking different things of people with different expertise. So how are you going to be changing the mix of experts that you have on staff? What are we going to see more of and what are we going to see less of in terms of their ability to respond?


    Mr. MULHOLLAN. We, by statute, are to assist all congressional committees, so we premise our expertise on the kinds of expertise that are necessary by legislation produced by the committees.

    First of all, with regard to different expertise needed, we have identified, a trend of an increasing need for quantitative skills. We had a trial run for our Graduate Intern Recruit Program this last year. As a result, we brought in summer interns from the various graduate schools across the country, from California, New York, Syracuse as well, though not the University of Iowa, we will work on that, Iowa State.
 Page 249       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SERRANO. What is this, New York and Syracuse as well?

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. New York City.

    Mr. SERRANO. Just checking.

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. They were a terrific group of people, and contributed across the board. Right now I can submit for the record, as mentioned, postings where we have aggressively recruited, and the top 12 graduate schools—excuse me, public policy schools in the country, 10 of those 12 we visited which have the highest minority graduate student population. We decided to do that also as a way to increase diversity. During the previous graduate recruit program, before it stopped, we had a 40 percent minority participation of the best and brightest in the country coming in to work for CRS.

    What we have here is an opportunity to identify, in the graduate schools across the country, those who are very capable in their disciplines, but also want to work in public service. The challenge we have oftentimes, is getting them motivated. They like the nonprofit sector, local and State governments instead, where they have more flexibility. So we have to strike them as an organization to be able to adopt quickly to change.

    We are continually looking at your needs and how Congress is changing, and I have talked to the committee before about how more decisions are being made in the budget and appropriation context, the devolution of Federal responsibility to the states, increased number of quantitative skills, we are also finding with the diminution of the executive branch a need to build a number of databases. The committees are turning to us for more substantive micro simulations, and modeling on for example S-chip, on the impact of temporary assistance for needy families, and for the development of a number of other databases that don't exist elsewhere that are needed to help determine the implications of the law.
 Page 250       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FAZIO. Do you think OTA's elimination may have shifted some of that work in your direction?

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. There is undoubtedly some type of shifting going on with the demand for the perspective of the sciences. OTA had a much different approach towards issues; they were looking at the longer horizon. And we are still paying particular attention to the legislative cycle right now, and so with some exceptions—for instance, we did a study on passive smoking that would perhaps have been done by OTA. In that instance we brought in outside experts for that period of time, and we will be looking at other opportunities, but it is a resource issue because each study was roughly $250,000 of money spent and those kinds of resources aren't available to us.

    Mr. FAZIO. Were those kinds of requests being responded to, where a more long-range analysis has been done?

    Mr. MULHOLLAN. That is an excellent question. I haven't done a study of it, although we could for you. It is a method in the scientific community. I note the House Science Committee feels it has been more assertive in trying to understand issues and looking at that as well, but we have hopes to increase our scientific capacity. For instance, on the graduate recruit, we are asking for an analyst in life sciences and an analyst in clinical biomedical research, those two positions, in our Graduate Recruit Program will be stepping stones toward building a commitment to greater capacity in those sciences.

    Mr. FAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 251       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Mr. WALSH. Does anyone else have any questions of Mr. Mulhollan at this time? If not, we will excuse him.

    Lastly, I believe, we have Mr. Kurt Cylke, Director of National Library Service, which operates the books for the blind and physically handicapped.

    Welcome, Mr. Cylke. Your budget is up by $1.6 million, to $48 million, and if you would like to make an opening statement or if you have any comments you would like to make, please feel free.

    Mr. CYLKE. I would like to make a brief comment.

    There are 3 million individuals in the United States who are eligible for service from the program. Two million of those are blind individuals and one million would be physically handicapped individuals. Of that universe, we serve approximately 778,000. We do this by circulating thousands of books, millions of books, each year.

    The blind community reads at approximately 30 books a year. We circulated 23 million books to the community last year. In order to read the audio books, we need machines, and these machines are, I believe, quite satisfactory—well-built. Statistics validate the fact that they last quite a long time. More than 33 percent are over 15 years old. They are not items you buy and throw away.
 Page 252       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Last year, we requested that you permit us to acquire 10,000 new machines to fill the void where machines are breaking. You courteously agreed to providing 5,000. This year we are asking for the other 5,000, if you could. This will round out our needs. It would ensure there will be no waiting lines and, hopefully, everyone eligible for service receiving it.

    Mr. WALSH. Well, we will do our level best to provide those additional machines. We felt 5,000 was pretty good last year. What had you been receiving in the past?

    Mr. CYLKE. Five thousand is ''pretty good.'' It was half the amount we needed, without being facetious.

    Mr. WALSH. In prior years, how many of these were purchased in a year?

    Mr. CYLKE. We purchased approximately—we actually manufacture—purchase is a code word for manufacture—we actually manufacture approximately 50,000 a year, depending on the monies available to us. That 50,000 is able to keep us at an even rate by shifting around from State to State without having waiting lines. The 10,000 we need to ensure that this situation continues.

    Mr. WALSH. What other new technologies are available, or becoming available, that might help to meet the needs of people taking advantage of the service now?
 Page 253       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. CYLKE. There are many and we are exploring them now. We have an in-house group called Technology Assessment and Review Process. The acronym for that is TARP. They are using the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) concept of developing a standard for the next generation, for the talking book machine. The talking book machine will most likely be a digitally based machine, and will be with us, we estimate, approximately 10 years off from now.

    When I heard Dr. Billington talk about the situations, the problems or what are the nature of things that are going to happen, you should know that there will come a time in the not too distant future, not immediately, not next year, but in a 10-year period, where technology will change. I am just going to use a figure, we don't intend to do this, but if you changed our program today and went to, say, a CD–ROM, and changed all the software and all the cassette machines, you would have a $160 million problem. With a $160 million problem, we don't believe we should jump into it without due deliberation.

    It is a transitional technology and will not be here when we are ready. We are studying and using people from industry, blind users, you know, actual blind individuals and so forth. We do not anticipate change in the immediate future. However, I assure you the engineers and the best minds in the community are looking at the problem.

    [A question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:]

    Question. For the record, update the readership, acquisition, and machine data.
 Page 254       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you. Mr. Serrano.

    Mr. SERRANO. Just a question, if you speak about producing 50,000 a year, and the original 10,000 and the number of people you are servicing, are you satisfied you are reaching out to as many folks as want the service?

    Mr. CYLKE. I have to give that a qualified answer. Our policy has been from the beginning of the program to make the program available to those people who wish it. That is to inform people that the program is available, and if they wish, to have them take advantage of it.

    We have approximately—15 percent change each year. If you look at our statistics, you will see the user base only grows by about 3 percent but there is a 10 to 12 percent dropout. When I say dropout, I mean deaths. We have an older population; 60 percent are over 65 years of age. So we lose approximately 12 percent of our people through death and we grow by 3 percent so we are changing 15 percent every year.

    I am satisfied that we are reaching the great majority of people who wish to use a library program. I am not saying we are reaching everyone. We have not put on a massive public relations campaign. We have, in some cases and in some areas of the country, put on limited efforts to promote the program. It didn't seem desirable to go out on a mass, broad, wide scale promotion when funds are not available.
 Page 255       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SERRANO. I would imagine in the same way teachers and other members of society and of the community inform people of the availability of libraries. It is probably no different in your situation.

    Mr. CYLKE. We have a significant exhibit program. This program is exhibiting to those who deal with individuals who are eligible. We connect with medical associations, nursing associations, those organizations, such as represented by the people in this room today—the National Federation of the Blind, American Council of the Blind, and so forth.

    We are not putting on a massive newspaper, TV, radio, mass publicity campaign.

    Mr. SERRANO. It is wonderful when your staff hands you a note that is exactly the next question you had in mind. They are usually one question ahead of me, so this is an improvement for me.

    How about services in languages other than English?


    Mr. CYLKE. We produce books, in limited quantities, in Spanish. We have a library in Puerto Rico. We also produce a few books in French, German, and Italian. The majority of non-English language books we purchase. We are able to supply 83 different languages. The ones that you might think of that—for example, Finnish. There are a few blind Finnish people who want to read that language, Swedish and so forth. We also have some of the languages in India, etc.
 Page 256       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SERRANO. When you say you produce the books——


    Mr. CYLKE. Produce the books and machines.

    Mr. SERRANO. So you select what books?

    Mr. CYLKE. We select the books. That is done by a cadre of professional librarians selecting. We use an advisory committee and every year the group gets together, a representative of the American Council of the Blind, the National Federation of the Blind, the librarians who serve the program and others, to point us in the general direction of where users believe we need to put in an effort. Then we select the books ourselves, produce the books, word for word, cover for cover, and then they are dropshipped to the network of 140 regional libraries and subregional libraries around the country who provide service.

    Mr. SERRANO. Is there any relationship between what the Government does, which is what you do, and the industry of books on tape?

    Mr. CYLKE. We were the ones who inspired the books on tape commercial market. They are following our guidelines and doing an excellent job on it. We are exploring at the present time the concept of perhaps buying from them some of the best sellers, which would prevent us from having to expend the money on those, to put money into other places. That is ongoing.
 Page 257       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SERRANO. You are trying to buy it, but that hasn't been okayed yet?

    Mr. CYLKE. It is not a matter of being okayed or not okayed. There are many problems. Our cassettes, for example, are on half-speed, four-track format. We have a certain standard for pronunciation and level of accuracy. For the blind community, we put out a nonaccented, unaccented, standard English, nondramatic book. The blind community has indicated an interest in receiving a book that lets them put the emphasis where needed. Some of the books that are commercially available are of a different type.

    The other thing you should know is more than 95 percent of the books are abridged versions, you know, Moby Dick on two cassettes—it is not the same book.

    Mr. SERRANO. Sounds like one minute on the Floor. But thank you very much. And I really commend the work you do and I will join the Chairman in attempting to work on that.

    Mr. WALSH. Mr. Latham.

    Mr. LATHAM. The reason I was late is because I was meeting with your customers.

    I am just curious, one thing, the 30 books per year, do you know what it is in the general population?
 Page 258       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. CYLKE. I believe, and I have a figure, it is less than two books, and three newspapers and one magazine. That sounds ridiculous, but that is what—if you look at the American population, that is what you are talking about.

    Mr. LATHAM. I would agree with that.

    Mr. CYLKE. The American publishing organizations publishes those figures.

    Mr. LATHAM. That is why I enjoy meeting with your constituents every year.

    Mr. CYLKE. I have been in the library business for 40-plus years and the good part of the library for the blind is the comments that we receive. In other words, the praise for doing a quality book, and the negative when we occasionally put out one which is not acceptable, either in terms of narration or in terms of technical quality or whatever. There is a significant amount of feedback. These individuals who are in the audience put us on report. It's a good feeling.

    Dr. BILLINGTON. One thing that is important, that is not generally realized, is that the abridged version for the blind reaches a very small audience. It costs money. It is something like 150,000.

    Mr. CYLKE. I can't give you the number.
 Page 259       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Dr. BILLINGTON. Something like that.


    Mr. CYLKE. The costs are reasonable. I will throw out one number here. For example, when we publish, we publish a thousand copies of the book, but an audio book, one copy is $5.82. That is a pretty good price. If you went out and bought a print book you would pay about $29.95. I believe we put out a very high quality product, a low unit cost product which is appreciated by the users.

    Mr. LATHAM. Thank you.

    Mr. WALSH. Mr. Fazio.

    Mr. FAZIO. I was going to go in the same direction Mr. Serrano did on the new phenomenon. I guess the busy American public is driving around listening to books, because you indicated they are not reading. I hate to think that somehow we couldn't marry those technologies and make that material more available.

    Mr. CYLKE. As I said, we are trying to do that. We got to that point, actually, several years ago. We initiated a request for a GAO audit. As a result of that audit, they encouraged what we weren't even thinking about—the purchase of commercial books—that was one of the mandates. We have a group working on that. We should be ready within one year.
 Page 260       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FAZIO. The one thing that disturbs me is people don't like to hear regional accents. But there is a certain richness about accents in America that people might want to hear.

    Mr. CYLKE. It is not that they do not want to hear it. I indicated earlier more than 60 percent of our people are over 65 years of age. With age goes hearing loss and difficulty in understanding. That is why they are nonaccented. If you get a regional book, we try to get a slight regional touch. If you are doing——

    Mr. FAZIO. To Kill a Mocking Bird?

    Mr. CYLKE. Yes, or the Friends of Eddie Coyle.

    Mr. FAZIO. Angela's Ashes.

    Mr. CYLKE. Yes. We had a narrator in New York, Patrick Horgan, who retired. He did a superb job with Irish.

    Mr. FAZIO. You do good work, Kurt.

    Mr. CYLKE. Thank you.

    Mr. WALSH. I would second that and associate myself to everything that has been said.
 Page 261       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Now I know who I owe thanks to. I was teaching for a couple years before I came here, in Utica, and I had an hour drive each way, so I devoured books on tape for that 2-year period. I would get home and my wife would look out, and I would be sitting out in the driveway, saying, what is he doing out there, and I would want to finish the chapter.

    Mr. CYLKE. When I first entered the program, my wife found me in the garage with the doors shut listening to Moby Dick.

    Mr. WALSH. Anyone else?

    [A question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:]


    Question. For the record, insert all reprogramming documents, and any other Committee approval actions.

    Response. These items are attached.
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. LATHAM. I would like to say my wife has locked me out, too.

    Mr. WALSH. Well, enough is enough. Thank you all very much for your testimony and your thoughtful comments and responses to our questions. The meeting is adjourned.
 Page 262       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  





    Mr. WALSH. The subcommittee will come to order. I would welcome my colleague Steny Hoyer on the Minority side. Is Congressman Serrano coming or are you filling in for him?

    Mr. HOYER. I don't know.

    Mr. WALSH. He is at a caucus.

    Mr. HOYER. We are in the midst of a caucus. I came over early. I think Vic won't be here because he is chairing the caucus.

    Mr. WALSH. Great. Good to have you with us. Good morning. Welcome. We welcome the Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, my colleague and friend from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton. Welcome, Jim.

 Page 263       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.

    Mr. WALSH. Good to have you with us. The Vice Chairman is Senator Connie Mack. He is not here. And the Ranking Minority Member is Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. I don't believe he is here, either.

    The staff director is also here, Christopher Frenze. Welcome.

    The budget justification material has been printed in Part 1 which has been distributed to the Members. Mr. Chairman, your letter reflects a request of $2,796,000. That is a $46,000 increase above the current level. Your staffing level will stay at 38. Please feel free to make a statement.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted some testimony for the record so I won't take your time by reciting all that.

    Let me say we are also accompanied by Colleen Healy, who is with the Majority staff, as well as Howard Rosen who works for Senator Bingaman, who is here with us.

    Mr. WALSH. Welcome.

Mr. Saxton's Opening Statement

    Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, over the past several years, beginning in 1996, the Joint Economic Committee accepted a reduction of about 36 percent of our budget. Then in 1997 and 1998 we had level funding which was at $2.75 million. This year we are asking for a 1.67 percent increase, just to try to hedge against inflation. Again, in real dollars we will have level funding or perhaps slightly a few percentage points below level funding with that kind of an increase.
 Page 264       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Let me just, without taking a lot of your time, say that our activities over the past year have been noted in such publications as The New York Times, The Financial Times, which of course is published in the U.K., The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and Time magazine. We have concentrated our efforts essentially in a number of areas, but let me just name three which I think are of particular importance:

    Our studies and analysis of tax policy, particularly personal saving and capital gains, has taken a fair amount of our time, along with studies that we have done on the distributional effects of the 1997 tax law. These have been studies that have been used by leadership and Members of both parties as well as members of the media and, of course, relating what we have studied and reported to the public at large.

    Secondly, we have done six studies on an issue which I believe is of great importance, particularly as we look at the period of economic growth in which we find ourselves. Some economists have now begun to talk about this part of our cycle as a wave, a growth wave rather than a growth part of our cycle. It is kind of interesting. Most economists today, or at least many, credit the Federal Reserve with having played a large part in bringing us to where we are.

    We have done six studies relative to low inflation and low interest rates, and I have also introduced legislation on what the Fed refers to as inflation targeting in order to, in effect, squeeze inflation out of the economy and at the same time have the effect of lowering interest rates. The legislation has been referred to the Banking Committee. We have seen a great boost to economic growth.
 Page 265       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Thirdly, we have recently been tasked by leadership to do an in-depth study of the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, obviously as an offshoot to what is going on economically in Asia. We are in the process of preparing a full report on the International Monetary Fund, how it works, and what we think are its weaknesses. We will be holding a hearing, incidentally, on the 24th of February on that subject, followed perhaps by a second hearing if need be. This is something that we anticipate will take a great deal of our time and effort during the next quarter, and perhaps over the next six months, depending upon what happens with respect to the IMF, as well as what happens to the Asian economies.

    We have been quite productive and have been able to do so at a greatly reduced budget. As you pointed out, I have with me today Chris Frenze, who is our executive director. Chris has assembled a great staff of economists and other support folks who have been very, very helpful.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. WALSH. Obviously the work that you are doing is very critical to the Nation and to our decision-making. The IMF re-funding will be coming up, I suspect, fairly soon, so the analysis that you have done will be very helpful to us. Your guidance of the economy thus far and your tutelage has been excellent. Keep it up.

    Mr. SAXTON. We are doing well. A great investment.

 Page 266       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. It is money well spent so far. We obviously focus more on the budgets than we do on macro and microeconomics, although the economics is much more interesting than the budget.

    Just one question, actually. You budgeted about $35,000 for hearings this year. Last year the hearing expenditure was very low. Is there a change in strategy here?

    Mr. SAXTON. The change is in the way the Senate, as opposed to the House, does billing. On the House side, our records are kept and paid for out of other House accounts. When we move to the Senate side, as we do from time to time for hearings, we have to pay for those services out of our budget.

    While we hope to have the same low expenditure in the coming year that we did in the last year, we never know. It depends on how many hearings we have on the Senate side. We don't have a hearing room, incidentally, and so we get bopped back and forth.

    Mr. WALSH. So the scheduling, the number of hearings probably is not remarkably different than it was last year?

    Mr. SAXTON. That is correct.

    Mr. WALSH. It is just a different accounting procedure?

 Page 267       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. SAXTON. That is correct.

    Mr. WALSH. Do you use consultants in your work?

    Mr. SAXTON. We do. We have found that while we have a very, very competent and professional staff of economists of our own, it is cost effective on many occasions to look outside of our staff for the expert advice and researchers that we need. And so we contract with outside economists from time to time, and have found their work to be very good.


    Mr. WALSH. Mr. Serrano. Questions?

    Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Nice to see you here.

    Just two quick questions. One you already began to speak to. That is at what point will you be asked to be involved in coming up with some comments about the broader economic issues? Any more information on that?

    The other question—I will put them both together—with various proposals still pending on changing tax codes and so on, what do you think the role will be of the JEC, what you will be asked to do?

    Mr. SAXTON. Essentially, with regard to tax policy we do two things. Obviously, inasmuch as we have folks working for us who follow direction from the leadership, leadership may ask us from time to time to do analysis of tax proposals. In the past we have worked with Mr. Archer and others on the Ways and Means Committee relative to what it is they think they might like to do.
 Page 268       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Secondly, we also are cognizant of the fact that tax policy from time to time has a fair amount to do with the performance of the economy. We therefore will make suggestions on our own from time to time relative to tax changes that we think might bode well for enhanced economic growth.

    Mr. SERRANO. Leadership has not really decided which way they want to go in terms of what tax plan to come up with. How will that affect your duties? You mentioned that you usually work with Ways and Means, but other plans are actually different from Mr. Archer's.

    Mr. SAXTON. Ways and Means has currently scheduled three hearings relative to tax policy. They are seeking ideas. I will send them some testimony relative to some ideas that we have. And, frankly, you may have heard in the news in the last day or so that our savings rate is at a historically low level. But we have a very, very low savings rate, not only relative to other countries, also relative to the past performance in our own country.

    One of the ways to enhance saving is by giving people incentives in the Tax Code to save. One of the suggestions that we will have is that the IRA program, which is very popular, has been approximately the same maximum level in terms of what you are qualified to put away each year tax-free since the inception of the program, $2,000.

    We have suggested that that level be expanded, and we have also suggested that it will provide an economic incentive for people to save were they able to withdraw their money for purposes other than just retirement: for example, medical expenses, educational expenses, and any other worthwhile subject that Congress might feel would be a good thing to withdraw tax penalty-free.
 Page 269       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    So this is the kind of a suggestion that we make. We do analysis, we refer it to the Joint Committee on Taxation for scoring, and hopefully that will be an idea that people will think is a good idea. Incidentally, the proposal that I just mentioned is co-sponsored by Marty Frost, so it is a bipartisan proposal.

    That is just to give you an idea of some of the things that we come up with on our own.

    Mr. SERRANO. Good. Thank you.

    Mr. WALSH. Mr. Hoyer.

    Mr. HOYER. Thank you. Jim, does the JEC make any budget estimates?

    Mr. SAXTON. Our function is not to make budget estimates.

    Mr. HOYER. I understand that is not the principal function, but do you make any?

    Mr. SAXTON. In what respect?

    Mr. HOYER. Is there any analysis made by the JEC early on in the cycle, like this month or next month, with reference to the accuracy of projections by CBO or OMB?
 Page 270       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FRENZE. Every so often we look at that issue, but we don't do it in a formal way that is normally incorporated into the budget procedure.

    Mr. HOYER. So essentially you don't issue any report or analysis of either the coming fiscal year or 5-year cycle, long-term?

    Mr. FRENZE. We have done studies that looked at the accuracy of projections in the past, and occasionally we will report on the reasonability of projections offered by several different government forecasting agencies. But we don't as part of the budget process normally have a formal submission.

    Mr. HOYER. Jim, you mentioned IMF. Have you issued any analysis since the failure to fund the IMF last year as to the consequences?

    Mr. SAXTON. Nothing formal. However, there is a report in the works which we will be issuing in the next week or two. Frankly, one of the things that I think is greatly misunderstood by the public is that the funds that are currently in the International Monetary Fund are adequate to do everything that the IMF has proposed to do so far. There are funds that are still in the pipeline, so to speak. I believe there is something in the neighborhood of $8 million still due to be used in South Korea, and other funds are also in the pipeline for other countries. So the $18 billion—the $17.75 billion, I guess it is, that is the subject of discussion here will be used for other contingencies in the future, but they are not contemplated to be needed for the current problem in Asia.

 Page 271       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. HOYER. So am I correct that the analysis will show that there was not a consequence?

    Mr. SAXTON. There is no consequence to date, that is correct.

    Mr. HOYER. In the economic analysis of the IRAs and the savings rate, obviously the savings rate has been low for a long period of time now in this country. I suppose there are a lot of analyses as to why that is the case.

    One of the reasons, as you know, that the IRAs were curtailed is that it was essentially concluded, as I recall, that there was no or not any substantial net increase in savings level as a result of the IRAs, and that in fact what occurred was a shift from one form of savings to another form of savings which had a greater tax advantage, but no net accretion to savings. Have you made an analysis of that?

    Mr. SAXTON. We have seen studies to that effect. Frankly, we were quite critical of them. When the IRA, forgive me not knowing the exact years when these happened, but when the IRA was initially developed——

    Mr. HOYER. You could use any year and I wouldn't know the difference.

    Mr. SAXTON [continuing]. All Americans were eligible for IRAs. There were some rules that we were critical of relative to spouses, nonworking spouses in particular, but all income groups were able to take advantage of the IRA program. As time went on, Congress saw fit to put in place income thresholds which made IRAs available only to those people who were——
 Page 272       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. HOYER. Caps, you are talking ''less than,'' as opposed to ''greater than?''

    Mr. SAXTON. Yes, only for those people who were less able to save than others. Therefore, we believe—I believe—that the results of the IRA program have been skewed by that part, of our population who are then able to take part, and those not able to take part. Frankly, we believe that the threshold—I believe that the threshold should be raised once again.

    I also think that the IRA program as it exists now is much less clear to the public than it was previously. That is because with the Roth IRA people have to, I believe, work through a couple of tax cycles before they will fully understand what the new program is all about.

    So I think as time goes on, if we are able to increase the amount of money that people are eligible to include in their IRA each year, and provide additional incentives by permitting withdrawals without penalties for other purposes, I believe firmly that it would increase the saving rate.

    Mr. HOYER. Let me ask you something as a follow-up to that, so I understand what you are saying. What percentage of the American population has sufficient discretionary income to participate in IRAs? Have you made an analysis of that?

    Mr. SAXTON. I don't know.
 Page 273       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. HOYER. I understand what you are saying and that is a very relevant point.

    Mr. SAXTON. Do we have those numbers?

    Mr. FRENZE. We don't have those numbers in front of us.

    Mr. HOYER. Clearly we presume that the top 20 percent, I presume, of income earners would have discretionary income available to invest in an IRA. Beyond that, I am not sure where that line cuts. Have you made an analysis of that?

    Mr. FRENZE. We could supply that for the record with specific data, but it is also true that there are a lot of middle class people who did use IRAs before, some of whom are not able to use them now. Some people at middle class levels of income have very high savings rates; some people at that level of income don't. It depends really on the taxpayer, with tax laws in general. As you know, the taxpayer's particular circumstances make generalizations difficult.

    Mr. HOYER. If the Roth IRA doesn't encourage people who have some discretionary income to put—sock away some money, nothing is going to do it, because the Roth IRA is a very good deal in terms of exempting all interest and earnings thereafter. Jim, I guess your point is, because you can't deduct the principal that you put into a Roth IRA, that it will take a couple of years for people to realize what a good deal it is.

 Page 274       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. SAXTON. It is a great deal. A couple of questions that have floated around relative to changes the Congress makes from time to time, essentially is benefits on the Roth IRA are backended. Some folks are saying, ''Well, you guys change things from time to time. What if you change this program while I've got my money in it?'' So we have got to be vigilant on this, to make sure that the public has confidence in the program. I think it will be good; that it will work very well.

    There are two other points that I would like to make on this. A, the current Tax Code discourages saving. The current Tax Code taxes us when we have income, and then we save the income and it taxes the interest that we earn or the revenue that we derive from that income, so in a sense it is a way of taxing twice.

    Secondly, it seems to me that the American public today has lived through, all of us have lived through a period when the stock market has done very well. People have had perhaps modest savings that they have seen double in value and some say, ''Well, golly I guess the stock market will take care of my retirement.''

    The realization is that the stock market may not always go up. The stock market could do some other things from time to time. It seems to me that it behooves us to mitigate as much as we can the prejudice that exists in our Tax Code against saving.

    Mr. HOYER. I couldn't agree with you more. The Tax Code has historically encouraged debt and discouraged savings. You could deduct the interest you paid on debt and you had to pay taxes on interest you earned on savings. I think you are absolutely right. It is somewhat perverse.
 Page 275       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Let me ask you something. One of the controversial items that we had in the last Congress, as you recall, was the issue of whether or not, because the stock market had accrued value in pension funds, to allow pension fund owners to withdraw more on the theory that they were now overvalued.

    You recall that proposal, which obviously on our side we felt was a risk because of the exact point you raise, if the stock market went down and devalued the assets of the pension fund, that the pensioners—prospective pensioners would be at greater risk. Did you make an analysis of that at that time?

    Mr. SAXTON. No, we did not.

    Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am sure I have taken more than my 5 minutes. I appreciate the time.

    Mr. WALSH. Very interesting questions.

    Mr. HOYER. I want to say that I believe the chairman who appears before us is one of the more thoughtful Members of the Congress and does a great service to this institution as a leader of the JEC.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Let me just mention, relative to this issue, former Senator Bentsen has also been an advocate of raising the cap on IRAs. So hopefully we can get something like this done on a bipartisan basis.
 Page 276       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. HOYER. I didn't vote for the 1986 tax bill, because of certain provisions in it I thought hit real estate too fast. I think that was proven. It couldn't change gears quickly enough. I think that led in part to the recession. There were some other things in there I didn't like.

    But having said that, I liked the objective of the 1986 bill, which was to reduce preference items and reduce rate. Dick Armey would take it to a flat tax, which I don't agree with.

    But I think that in the 1986 bill, the information I had was that the IRAs were not creating savings, and therefore were simply an expenditure that didn't get us what we thought we were buying, and that is greater savings rates. I think that is an important question. You may be right, Jim, that the taking of the cap off, because you then reach more people with discretionary income who can then take advantage of the tax aspects of the IRAs, may make a difference. But then it will also have the perverse effect from some perspectives of skewing once again the distribution, which on our side in particular, I know on your side as well, is a concern.

    Mr. SAXTON. Sure.

    Mr. HOYER. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WALSH. If there are no further questions, we will excuse our witnesses. Thank you for coming.
 Page 277       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.











Opening Remarks
 Page 278       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WALSH. We will now hear from the Architect. Mr. Hantman, welcome.

    Mr. HANTMAN. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WALSH. The Architect is making his second appearance before the subcommittee. We welcome him back. We acknowledge certainly the enthusiasm and vigor he has brought to this job and applaud that. Why don't we give you an opportunity to introduce your staff people.

    Mr. HANTMAN. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Major witnesses include Stuart Pregnall our Budget Officer; Herbert Franklin, our Administrative Assistant; Bob Miley, the House Office Buildings Superintendent; and Amita Poole, our Supervising Engineer for the Capitol Building. Also, if these subjects come up, we have Dan Hanlon, our Director of Engineering; Lynne Theiss, our Executive Officer who is also in charge of the U.S. Botanic Garden project; Hector Suarez, our Human Resources Director; and Margaret Cox, our Senior Labor Relations Attorney, plus a cast of thousands. Also, Jack Boertlein, who is our Assistant Budget Officer, will assist me in pointing to some of the presentation boards that we have.

Opening Statement

    Mr. WALSH. I would just highlight the estimates we will be considering. Your total budget request is $185.5 million and 1,403 FTEs. We have your prepared statement. If you would like to summarize.
 Page 279       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to once again appear before this subcommittee to present the budget for the Architect of the Capitol, one year and one day after I officially assumed my office on February 3, 1997. As you are aware, I have been immersed in learning and evaluating the complexities of this agency, while also initiating concrete action in response to Congress's imperative to provide cost-effective, quality service in support of its day-to-day activities. I heard Congress's mandate ''loud and clear'' and have focused in on rebuilding this agency into a unified, yet flexible, responsive and quality-oriented instrument of the Congress.

    Mr. Chairman, I ask your indulgence because I have a two-part presentation I would like to make today. First, I would like to take a few minutes not only to discuss our fiscal year 1998 appropriation, but also to put it in the context of a kind of state-of-the-agency overview: where we are, where we are going. Some things are not quantifiable, Mr. Chairman, even at a budget hearing, but I think they are important to know and I would like to then specifically address the fiscal year 1999 budget request.

    I will start with Capital Projects and where we are. We have been initiating the planning, the drawings, the contracts, the construction for work on the $33 million of capital projects that you very thoughtfully funded for us in 1998. This includes $3 million in projects under contract for design, such as ADA improvements projects, the Cannon garage, Rayburn Building telecommunications and fire sprinkler systems, legislative call system replacement studies. There are some $12 million in projects under contract for construction, the Cannon Building modernizations, some $2 million; Capitol Building plumbing, smoke detection, fire alarms, et cetera, some $800,000; the last section of the Jefferson Building roof, elevator modernization in the House and in the Library of Congress, security infrastructure support projects.
 Page 280       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We also have some $18 million in project development; some $3.2 million in elevator and escalator modernization; $1 million in a power plant east chiller replacement program. We will be requesting some $5 million in fiscal year 1999 for the first increment of what that design will be showing. Also ADA improvements, sound system improvements in the House Office Buildings, et cetera.

    Also we have completed construction documents for renovation of the U.S. Botanic Garden Conservatory. This project is now being advertised for bid. The contiguous privately funded National Garden is also in process and will follow shortly. Another very significant project is the rehabilitation of the U.S. Capitol Dome. Initial portions of the study for necessary renovations of the Dome have been completed while others are still in process. This fiscal year 1999 budget recommends allocating some $7.5 million to perform the complex task of removing lead-based paint in the interstitial space between the inner and the outer domes and, after study, repainting that metal. This will permit us to make the necessary detailed inspection of all cast iron elements to clearly define the scope of work for subsequent phases.

    Listening to the news the last couple of days, I hear about funding for the Wilson Bridge. The Wilson Bridge, as you may know, is 36 years old, and they are looking at a $1.1 billion budget to replace the Wilson Bridge. We are talking about a 140-year-old dome built of cast iron, that was modeled after St. Isaacs in St. Petersburg. This is a material that has not been used much longer than that and we really need to investigate what needs to be done with respect to it and do appropriate studies. We can talk in detail about that later if you would like, Mr. Chairman.

 Page 281       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    On the Operations, Personnel Policies and Procedures side, we have initiated programs to select and begin the introduction of a computer-aided facility management system (CAFM), which will track, coordinate, record and evaluate work management cost and staffing data throughout the campus, as well as to provide enhanced space management systems and capabilities. In investigating this agency, there basically has been very little recordkeeping in terms of what it costs to do a project, how many man hours are spent on a project. This system will help us to quantify that and come up with databases that will allow us to more intelligently staff our projects and be responsive to Congress' needs to appraise us and see what we are doing with our dollars.

    We have also improved communications between the agency and our oversight entities, our clients, other arms of Congress, and clearly this is an ongoing effort. We have upgraded our internal administrative systems to achieve a year 2000 fix for our procurement, financial and inventory operations, and I believe we are the first legislative branch agency to have accomplished that. We are very proud of Stuart and his staff for having done that.

    We have initiated an agencywide strategic planning process. We facilitated initiatives with the House Sergeant at Arms, the CAO, as well as their counterparts on the Senate side, to coordinate services, eliminate overlapping functions, et cetera. And we are rebuilding our Human Resources Management Division to fulfill the imperatives of the Architect of the Capitol Human Resources Act and the Congressional Accountability Act. We have also created task forces to investigate alternative means of providing more cost-effective and quality services in many areas of this agency.

    I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is important for the Congress to know the philosophical underpinnings of these efforts, the foundation we are building on, because there is really no quick-fix solution to what is needed in rebuilding and reengineering business practices in this agency.
 Page 282       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Through our strategic planning process, we are building an organization that will be able not only to support the day-to-day workings of both Houses of Congress in an equitable and professional manner, but one that will go on performing its duties long after all of us in this room are gone. It is important for us to build not only for today but also for the future, not only in our capital and maintenance projects but also to build the proper team to perform the necessary day-to-day functions and services of this agency. This includes developing the proper mix of in-house staff, vendors, indefinite quantity service contracts and temporary employees to be called upon as work load necessitates.

    We have a new ''vision statement'' which Jack will show us as we turn the first board. This was developed with 30 of our top managers sitting down talking about where we are, where we are going, what we need to be. The vision statement states that ''We will be an innovative and efficient team, dedicated to service excellence and to preserving, maintaining, and enhancing the national treasures entrusted to our care.''

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    The strategic planning process also produced a set of core values which we have on the chart beneath that. The first two core values deal with service excellence and stewardship. The next six really tell us how we can do that, dealing with integrity, professionalism, creativity, loyalty, respect and diversity, and teamwork. That is the only way we are going to be able to give this Congress the level of service that it really needs and be good stewards, in fact, for the national treasures we have here on Capitol Hill.
 Page 283       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. Chairman, change is necessary to assure that this agency makes these values and the vision part of our corporate culture, so that all staff members truly make them the foundation of our work and the basis for how we do business day to day.

    Many issues were identified and mandated for change in the Architect of the Capitol's Human Resources Act and in the Congressional Accountability Act. These include the requirement to develop human resources management programs consistent with the practices common among other Federal and private sector organizations. We are working on that. This agency has begun many initiatives in the HR area and some of them are listed here in our budget request.

    The Congressional Accountability Act also created the Office of Compliance with the powers to monitor compliance within the intent of the act. It also granted the employees of this agency, among others on Capitol Hill, the right to form unions. As you are aware at this point, AFSCME Local 26 has been designated to represent over 600 of our custodial and labor employees and we are in the process of working with the union on a range of issues. I understand the union has just completed its elections. They now have a president and a full staff. I would like to congratulate all those folks and look forward to working with them.

    In order to address these realities and comply with these laws, this agency is undergoing an intensive review of all of its operations with a goal of continuously refining and improving the quality of our services to Congress and our visitors to Capitol Hill, while at the same time responding to the imperatives of the laws discussed above. As part of this review, we are investigating how to keep costs down and most efficiently deliver our services in fulfillment of our fiduciary responsibilities to the American taxpayer. This is in line with House recommendations over the past 2 years regarding future restructuring of this office. The recommendations included looking for sensible ways to streamline the Architect's operation and logical areas in which to involve the private sector; specifically, consideration of the private sector was suggested for routine maintenance and remedial work in addition to the major AOC projects.
 Page 284       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Our ongoing investigation therefore includes in-depth evaluations of logical areas in which to involve the private sector, internal opportunities to reengineer and consolidate our existing staff, and opportunities to eliminate duplication of services with other arms of the House and the Senate. If any of these initiatives involve staffing reductions, it is our recommendation that this agency be authorized to implement early out and buy out programs for affected employees. This type of program has been successfully used by the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office and the General Accounting Office, which has shared valuable information with us on their recent efforts in reengineering. This is also a program which we successfully used this fiscal year in the Senate restaurants to eliminate consistent losses.

    There are three basic components to this review and this evaluation: impartial peer group benchmarking for best business practices, intraagency information gathering and assessments, and customer feedback. All of these are ongoing. We need to talk to more people, more Members of the House, more of their staff, more members of our own agency about what we are doing, what we are doing right, what we are doing wrong, and draw decisions based on that. These are discussed in more detail in section 5 of the statement.

    But I would like now to turn specifically to address our fiscal 1999 budget request. The operating budget that we have here, requested in 1999 is on the right side of this presentation board and it represents $153.8 million. On the left side of the board we see capital projects.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
 Page 285       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    This represents some $87 million, including $25.4 million for security projects which we will talk about in more detail later on. With respect to the operating budget, this is a 5.8 percent increase over last year's budget. It would be 5 percent if we eliminated the election cycle move costs which we are going into for next November. But two-thirds of these cost increases relate to COLA's, mandated pay and benefits increases. Six percent of the increase is for an agency-wide uniform program, for which we are doing a pilot project now on the Senate side. In my mind it would make a lot of sense to have all of our employees in uniform, for the sense of uniformity and pride in the agency that it would give and security issues as well.

    As a service agency, of course, the largest component of this overall budget, 39 percent, is in pay and benefits. As I just discussed earlier, cost savings will be achieved through the reengineering plan formulated in fiscal 1998 and implemented after congressional review in 1999. We expect that there would be savings reflected in subsequent budgets. We also see in our operating budget the area of utilities, some 11 percent, $21.9 million of that is for electrical service, $1.8 million, for water and sewer, and $1.4 million for gas.

    In other services we have general maintenance and shop support, general administrative costs such as bringing in outside contractors to do air conditioning reviews. We also have private people coming in to assist us in the area of safety reviews, cost estimating, architectural engineering services and IRM computer services as well.

    We have a very significant decrease on the next chart. Let us take a look at that if we could please. This shows FTE employment.

 Page 286       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    It indicates there has been a 16.4 percent reduction from 1992 to date, a very significant decrease, and very many positive reengineering efforts have been made to try to achieve a continuation of quality service with that cut in staff. We have had shop consolidations to reduce the number of supervisors, we have cross-trained our work force so the second and third shifts in the HVAC shop would be able to handle emergency calls for both plumbing and electrical so we don't have to have those folks work also.

    We have job order contracts for small renovation projects, changing tours of duty for our folks to be able to deal with the reduced FTE count, temporary staff for seasonal and short-term work. This chart, Mr. Chairman, represents a maximum, a maximum number of FTEs for fiscal year 1999. Let us go on to our next chart if we can.

    This chart which is our fiscal year 1999 operating and capital budget has two basic colors on it. The operations are shown in blue. As you can see, Mr. Chairman, the costs have been relatively level over the last 6 years. Most of the inflationary costs, costs of increased utilities, increased COLA's, et cetera, have been absorbed through decreases in work force so that we have a fairly constant level.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    The more significant changes have occurred in the capital side of the budget, in yellow. In fact in the fiscal year 1999 budget, we see a major component is $25 million at the top of that bar for security-related projects. Let us take a look at the breakdown, if we could, of the capital budget itself.
 Page 287       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    It is broken down basically into new facilities on the left-hand side which deal with the issue of security. That is $25.3 million or 29 percent and a very small $1.6 million in new projects for clients. The lion's share of this is in reinvestment projects, some 142 projects worth $60.4 million.

    Let me review, if I may, some of the projects involved over here. In life safety we are talking about $5 million for the east power plant chiller that has CFCs that by law need to be removed and replaced; $2.56 million in the Rayburn Building installing sprinkler and telecom cable systems; $150,000 for fire alarm systems, et cetera. There are some 30 projects in the life safety category.

    Under the title of cyclical maintenance, we have some $22 million representing 65 projects. Major ones include $3.2 million for the Longworth sixth and seventh floor roofs; $1.2 million for the Cannon electrical and telecommunications system; a million dollars for the Cannon garage; $7.5 million for the Capitol Dome is in that category.

    Improvement in the AOC, the next category, of 13 projects for $3.6 million. There is $2 million for a co-generation facility which we can talk about later on; $250,000 for the snow melt system on top of the Capitol roof; $75,000 for lightning protection in the House Office Buildings; $100,000 for humidification projects in the Ford Office Building, et cetera.
 Page 288       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The cyclical maintenance improvement projects deal with upgrading building systems, electrical telecommunications systems in the Cannon Building, sound improvements in committee hearing rooms on the Senate side, some renovations for mechanical and telecommunications in the Dirksen Building, et cetera.

    The proposed $20 million Capitol Square perimeter security project on the new project side has $3.5 million in it for the Senate Office Buildings themselves. We will be meeting with you this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, to review in detail that entire perimeter security project, and we can go into that in as much detail as you would wish now and a full presentation this afternoon.

    The reinvestment projects are basically broken down into seven categories. There are major categories such as life safety, cyclical maintenance, cyclical maintenance improvement, with ADA improvements, et cetera. The requested increase in the capital improvements portion of this budget is very significant, but the magnitude of the total for reinvestment cyclical maintenance projects is very much in line with the benchmark analysis we discussed last year. That analysis indicated that a campus-like complex of this age, this monumental quality and this magnitude could expect to conservatively expend annually approximately 1.7 percent of the replacement value of the buildings and the infrastructure.

    The next chart indicates some of the benchmarks that we have measured with.

    [The information follows:]
 Page 289       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Clearly what we are trying to do here is to ask a reasonable question: How does anybody know how much we should reinvest each year in a campus of buildings as complex as ours? We can clearly look project by project, which is what we are doing, to see what needs to be done and let each project stand on its own. But the magnitude of the overall total budget is what this attempts to deal with.

    We estimate that the replacement value for our complex is in the range of $3.6 billion. If we take 1.7 percent of that, this is the type of budget that we are measuring against. That 1.7 percent comes from the benchmarks that we got from the Universities of Illinois, Michigan, and Stanford that basically averaged out to about 1.7; Army Corps of Engineers has a budget objective of 1.75; the university Federal research cost recovery, the OMB, A–21, has a 2 percent figure. The IRS allows a depreciation of commercial property at 40 years, which translates to 2.5 percent on an annual basis. National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences has a low of 1.5 percent and a high range of 3 percent. Our request basically this year is 1.7 percent of our estimated replacement value. Once again we are talking about reinvestment, cyclical maintenance costs without the security issues, without new facilities.

    The next chart has been updated from last year's budget and it shows this 1.7 percent annual reinvestment benchmark in blue. It contrasts it against actual reinvestment.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

 Page 290       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    We can see from 1993 to 1998, it shows that the blue has gone from $49.6 million in 1993, escalated at 3 percent per year, it goes to $57.5 million in 1998. This totals some $321 million in potential need for reinvestment during this period. The red line plots actual reinvestment allocations, from $25.3 million in 1993 down to $14 million in 1997, plus the $33.5 million U.S. Botanic Garden emergency funding which brought it up to a total of $47.9 million. In 1998, it shows that our budget went to $33.7 million which this committee allocated, reversing the downward trend in recognition of the very real needs we all have to be responsible stewards of these national treasures. I think it is important to note, however, that the total reinvestment made in the Capitol complex between 1993 and 1998 amounts to just under $175 million, or 54 percent of the $321 million benchmark for that period. The approximately $150 million difference between the benchmark and actual expenditures accounts in my opinion for the pent-up need for so many long deferred projects that finally need to be funded.

    Frankly, I believe that we would be in a lot worse shape if the day-to-day maintenance efforts of our staff had not helped to extend the life of building systems and components well beyond what could reasonably be expected.

    Mr. Chairman, I have some photographs over here of air handling units in the Cannon House Office Building that were installed in 1937, renovated in 1965; 60 years later they are still in great shape, still pumping away, largely because of Bob Miley's effort and his wonderful staff. These are pictures of lots of these type of antiquated elements that are still performing good service, some of them well beyond, their expected life and some of them really need to be replaced at this point in time, much like the Wilson Bridge, although it has only lasted some 36 years.

 Page 291       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    As this chart shows, our 1999 request for reinvestment funding is within 2 percent of the $59.3 million benchmark, which again is just a guide. Each project once again must stand on its own merits, must be evaluated in that sense, but we stand ready, Mr. Chairman, to discuss the validity of each of the projects at your convenience.

    The next chart shows that we categorized the projects into life safety, ADA, security, et cetera, for the specific purpose of prioritizing them, for taking a look at what we can afford, what we need to do, and making intelligent judgments with respect to that.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    I readily acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, that the amount requested is large, and I understand the pressure to achieve a balanced Federal budget in fiscal year 1999. As you are well aware, however, the needs for these projects don't go away since they are needed to maintain our aging infrastructure. In fact, more than $8 million in unfunded projects from fiscal 1998 are again requested in fiscal 1999, adding to the total.

    Of course, adding to the total are major unanticipated costs such as the Capitol Square perimeter security improvement project, which was not defined the last time I met with you gentlemen, as well as the ongoing studies of the necessary repairs and repainting of the Capitol Dome. These two projects alone account for $27.5 million of the fiscal year 1999 budget.

    Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being overly long. It is a very complex budget. There is a lot to talk about, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss and answer whatever questions you have.
 Page 292       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."


    Mr. WALSH. Thank you. You shall have that opportunity. Thank you for your opening statement and the vision that you have provided. You have taken not only a very workman-like approach to the job but also a visionary approach and combined the two. I think that is remarkable. It also may be a little unrealistic, but we will talk about that.

    Let me begin by making just a few general observations. This budget asks for $58.3 million more than last year. That is a 45, almost 46 percent increase. Without getting into the merits of specific projects, one would have to question whether that is a realistic expectation, given the fact that this subcommittee was, in effect, forced to control spending to the degree of about a 1 percent increase in last year's budget. You are in a pool with the GAO, the Library of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, the Capitol Hill Police. If you were to receive a 45 percent increase in your budget, do you realize what that would do to their budgets? I would just like to have you comment. Part of your vision statement is integrity.

    Mr. HANTMAN. Absolutely.

    Mr. WALSH. Credibility is a key aspect of that. Just your general feeling about this rather remarkable increase.

 Page 293       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. HANTMAN. As I reviewed the budget patterns, Mr. Chairman, of the last 6 years, it really became obvious that there had been a hesitancy on the part of this agency to request funds necessary for the proper stewardship of our buildings and our infrastructure. During this period, there has been a consistent reduction in the capital funding levels requested and appropriated. This benchmark of 1.7 percent of replacement cost was developed to give us a way to measure the magnitude of reinvestment we might need to make in our aging infrastructure just to maintain it at a constant level.

    The benchmark percentage of our $3.6 billion amounted again to $320 million. We just talked about that. This really left us with a backlog of projects that need to be done. That is where the $150 million I discussed came, on top of the $60 million on a year-to-year basis. It bears no relationship, clearly, Mr. Chairman, to the budgets of last year, the year before, the year before that. I frankly believe that I would be doing this committee, the Congress and the American people a disservice if I didn't bring these very real needs to your attention, even with the severe budget limitations that we have. All 160 projects have been prioritized and I would welcome the opportunity to review in detail, each one of them.

    Clearly, we have been putting things off. Some will again most likely have to be put off again. But I think we need to put them on the table. I can't, Mr. Chairman, be an ostrich, hide my head in the sand and say this is what we have been doing; therefore, this is what we should be doing.

    We have a real pent-up need to take care of some things that have not been taken care of over a prolonged period of time. So from my basis of integrity, I am sharing the information with you and I fully understand the budgetary problems. But we should know what the issues are, what the ramifications are, and go forward from there.
 Page 294       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Mr. WALSH. Fair enough. This $58.3 million increase, just take the capital budget for a second. The expenditures that you have proposed, given the baseline—and I asked you to provide us that last year and you did—that 1.7 percent figure. What does the increase, or what does your expenditure in capital come out to be in terms of percent of the overall physical plant value?

    Mr. HANTMAN. It is 1.7 percent, sir, based on $3.6 billion as an assessed value.

    Mr. WALSH. For this proposed budget, it is 1.7 percent?

    Mr. HANTMAN. That is correct. Last year it was 1.4 percent. Is that correct?

    Mr. PREGNALL. That is correct. That excludes the funding request for new facilities and security improvements, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. WALSH. It is excluding the security improvements?

    Mr. HANTMAN. That is correct.

    Mr. WALSH. So if you put those in, wherever you—
 Page 295       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. HANTMAN. Again, in my mind in trying to develop this benchmark, Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to measure where we should be.

    Mr. WALSH. It is capital budget, though?

    Mr. HANTMAN. It is capital budget, but when you look again at what we need to do here in terms of budget, this is unique to the capital budget. The Botanic Garden conservatory last year was unique to the capital budget.

    Mr. WALSH. I understand.

    Mr. HANTMAN. In terms of reinvestment to stay level, not build any new structures, the 1.7 percent holds. A new project such as the Capitol security really has no relevance to that benchmark in my mind because it is a totally new project, as would be a new visitors center if we were to fund it.

    Mr. WALSH. I can understand how you have been separating it in your mind, but it is a luxury to think that a capital expenditure is not part of that overall expense.

    Mr. HANTMAN. It truly is. I was just dealing with the reinvestment portion of our budget.

    [A question from Mr. Cunningham and response follow:]
 Page 296       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Question. I would like to address the matter of capital projects for the Capitol campus. I agree that cyclical maintenance is an often-delayed expense. You describe a ''benchmark'' analysis that concludes that an amount equal to 1.7 percent of the replacement value of buildings and infrastructure should be expended each year to assure adequate cyclical maintenance. By what process do you estimate the Capital campus' replacement value? By what standard, other than simple comparative estimation that neglects the unique characteristics of the Capital complex, do you arrive at the 1.7 percent figure for annual cyclical maintenance expense? Is not the 1.7 percent standard essentially arbitrary, so that worthy projects and otherwise can be stacked up to meet or exceed that figure?

    Response. The Capitol campus' replacement value of $3.6 billion was estimated by taking the actual construction costs of all facilities and inflating them to current dollars. The Consumer Price Index was used to inflate all costs through 1912 and thereafter the Construction Cost Index was used. Included in the base construction costs were all original building costs plus the cost of adding new systems or improvements. We are currently reviewing other methods of estimating current replacement cost, including using the new Ronald Reagan Building as a basis and a methodology developed by the General Services Administration used in developing budget estimates for new facilities. Based on our preliminary data, we believe that the $3.6 billion is a realistic number that if anything is somewhat conservative.

    The 1.7 percent was derived from applying methodologies developed independently by the University of Illinois, University of Michigan, and Stanford University for determining required cyclical maintenance as well as discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, literature from the National Research Council of the Academy of Sciences cites cyclical maintenance reinvestment percentages in the range of 1.5 to 3.0 percent of the current replacement value of a facility. Based on our analysis and other literature, the 1.7 percent is a conservative percentage. Because the percentage is applied to the replacement cost of the Capitol complex, it takes into consideration the unique characteristics of the facilities. The AOC's capital budget request was developed and should stand on a project by project basis. The benchmark analysis is a tool that provides an indication of an average annual funding level that should be reinvested in the existing infrastructure.
 Page 297       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Mr. WALSH. We realize that the plant must be maintained and improved when necessary, but the care of the maintenance program must also be compatible with the realities of our budget. Probably just as important, it must fit the capabilities of your staff to carry out the program. Assuming that we were to fund this request, 45 percent growth is more than any organization can handle. Have you taken that into consideration?

    Mr. HANTMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. One of the line items under other services includes the ability for us to go out and bring in architectural, engineering, construction services to work as adjuncts to our existing staff to handle such an increased load. We fully recognize that our existing staff would not be capable of handling the load that we are working on for this year and such an increase for next year as well. We need to be better managers. We need to bring in outside consultants who can help us manage, and we need to manage them. I think that is basically the only way that we would be able to achieve control over the level of projects we are talking about.

    Mr. WALSH. If you can take on an additional 45 percent workload with existing staff, the obvious question is: What are they doing now?

    Mr. HANTMAN. Which is why I responded that our budget does include dollars for outside consultants to be brought in for our existing staff to monitor them.

    [A question from Chairman Walsh and response follow:]
 Page 298       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Question. In the Capitol buildings appropriation, you are requesting $33.2 million in the operating budget and $22.2 million in the capitol budget.

    Of the $33.2 million, you are asking for $16,984,000 to payroll 388 FTE's. That's a 22% increase to pay 6 less staff than employed in 1997. Federal pay has not increased by 11% per year. Can you explain this large increase?

    Response. The increase in funding request in fiscal year 1999 over actual 1997 reflects two areas of increase. First, there are increased costs for cost of living adjustments for both general schedule and wage grade employees as well as the pay adjustments for the statutory positions effected in 1998. The apparent 22% increase between the fiscal year 1999 request and the actuals for fiscal year 1997 is due to the fact that many of the top level positions in the Architect's office that are paid from this appropriation were vacant for all or part of 1997. Fiscal year 1997 was a transition year in the sense that the congressional search for a new Architect of the Capitol was underway, and several critical staff slots were left unfilled until the new Architect was named. Included are positions for the Architect of the Capitol, Assistant Architect of the Capitol, Director of Personnel, Assistant Director of Personnel, Head of Electronics Engineering Division, Head of A/C Engineering, Supervising Engineer of Capitol Buildings, Legal Counsel, and several other general schedule staff engineers, computer specialists, personnel, and administrative positions.


    Mr. WALSH. Who is going to manage those projects? Would you manage them with outside contractors? Or would you just have the work done by outside contractors?
 Page 299       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. HANTMAN. The work would have to be done by outside contractors. They would have to largely be managed by outside architects, engineers, construction managers as well. Our people need to change something of their orientation as opposed to implementing projects hands on, day to day; they need to be managers of consultants. That again is the only way that we could—your question is an excellent one—be able to manage an increased workload such as this. We have no intention of adding to our staff at that level. The workload is very significant. That is, I think, the only way that we could accomplish it.

    A point that Stuart makes is also the contract managers themselves are charged against the projects, so it doesn't come into our personnel costs.

    Mr. WALSH. Be a little more difficult to control costs that way?

    Mr. PREGNALL. Mr. Chairman, our Construction Management Division hires project managers, inspectors and so forth to handle each individual project. Those staff costs are charged against the construction project itself. When the project is completed, they are released and go back to the private sector or wherever they came from. There is an element of quality control that the government has to assume to make sure that those funds are expended properly.

    Your point about cost management is well taken; a $30 million capital program is significant. A $60 million capital program is even more significant. There is an awful lot of money to control there and manage.
 Page 300       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Mr. WALSH. I will get to some questions about the Botanic Garden project, but it is clear that there has already been some slippage in that project in terms of the timing and deadlines and key dates and so forth—not unreasonable, and I will give you the opportunity to explain that—but with this volume we are talking about, asking that we fund 114 new capital projects which will be added to 73 ongoing projects that have been already funded, all this will be in addition to your routine care and maintenance workload. That is an astonishing increase and obviously begs a number of questions.

    Let me ask a couple of questions about the Botanic Garden, if I may. By the way, I have your Web site book marked, and the Botanic Garden project, and I am watching it that way and that is helpful. Could you give us a status report on the Botanic Garden project?

    Mr. HANTMAN. Maybe, Lynne, would you like to? Lynne Theiss.

    Ms. THEISS. At the present time, we have advertised in CBD which is our requirement for procurement. The ad went out on February 2. Opening the bidding process, getting in the solicitations from the different companies, the general contractors, will be done during the month of March. Bid packages will then be going out to them. At that point we hope to start bid evaluations by the end of May, beginning of June, with awarding in June.

    At the time, the information that you were provided when the original request went through did not take into account the consolidation of the four phases of construction documents. That is one of the things that has caused the time delay. We had to take the four phases of the construction project and roll those into one package. I think at the same time our A&E, consultants DMJM, had to reassemble their own architectural team again so they could assist in the review process.
 Page 301       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. HANTMAN. Because the design was stopped back in 1995?

    Ms. THEISS. Right.

    Mr. HANTMAN. Some people went on to other projects, were no longer available, so they had to reorganize their staff to complete the construction documents which had not been completed at that time. Also I think there were engineering problems.

    Ms. THEISS. We had some engineering problems. Since 1995 some new OSHA regulations were developed which affected the structural revamping: things like the roof load had to have a 5,000 pound stress factor so if we were doing any work on the roof, then we could do the maintenance properly and have safety factors in that. We also have the integration of the entire security system with the Capitol Police as part of an engineering design process which is still under way.

    Mr. WALSH. It is safe to say these sorts of things can happen with these new projects, too. It is certainly a consideration.

    Ms. THEISS. Exactly.

    Mr. WALSH. Let me give you some dates and let you respond to those. Last April we were learning about the emergency conditions at the conservatory. Your office provided a time line schedule that indicated the contract would be awarded by January 9, 1998 and that construction would be completed by October 1, 1999. That was the information we had when we added $33.5 million to the supplemental bill.
 Page 302       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Then, after the 1997 supplemental was enacted, an August fact sheet estimated that the procurement phase would be finished by March 13, 1998, with construction scheduled for completion between March 13, 2000 and October 13, 2000. That is a slippage of 2 months in the award date and almost a year in the completion date. Early last month we were told the award now would be made in June.

    Ms. THEISS. Yes, sir. I was not part of the original presentation so I'm not sure how some of the things you mentioned were assembled. The award process is a 90-day process. It is a 30-day advertisement, saying that we are going to put a procurement package out, and then we have limited this one to 60 days. That is why we can say a June award.

    The construction project itself has always been a 24-month construction project and a 3-month replanting project. One of the things that also has to be taken into consideration is the seasonal implications of putting plants in during the winter, doing renovations during the winter, abatement projects, and that sort of thing.

    Mr. WALSH. The committee would like to receive periodic status reports on this project.

    Ms. THEISS. We would be happy to.

    Mr. WALSH. Use the same format frequency that was used for the library renovation project. We would also like to see all milestone completions compared with the original timetable established for the project.
 Page 303       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. THEISS. Certainly.

    Mr. WALSH. This is really the first major project certainly for this subcommittee under the leadership of myself and Mr. Serrano. I think we would obviously like to have this one done on time and under budget if possible.

    Mr. HANTMAN. Absolutely.

    Mr. WALSH. I can't speak for Mr. Serrano. I would assume that is his view as well.

    Mr. SERRANO. Absolutely. And with no problems. It would look bad on our resume.

    Mr. WALSH. I have some more questions, but I will go to Mr. Serrano now and give him an opportunity.


    Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The chairman asked you a question about your request. I thought it was a good question, dealing with the fact that other people know they can't request increases above a certain amount. Your answer I thought was also excellent in suggesting that you can't hide, you have to tell us what is wrong and then we have to make decisions along with you as to what to take care of.
 Page 304       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    With that in mind, is there an impending doom that if some things are not dealt with, it would create major problems for what you have to do? In other words, are there some things that you say, listen, if we can't do this, we have to do this, otherwise we will have a major problem in a year or two, or five?

    Mr. HANTMAN. What we have done is really take a look at not only the categorizations of life safety, ADA, in and of itself which gives us a sense of a level of importance, but within each category we also have, within life safety, prioritized what is 1–A, the highest priority items that we need to take care of, what is 1–B, 1–C what is a level 2, a level 3.

    Our budget is structured so that if we want to eliminate everything in the 3 category, in the 2 category, we can do that depending on what reasonable level of budget we can achieve. So we can go down each of those categories, again, life safety, cyclical maintenance, ADA criteria, look at each individual project, see which of them are priority 1–A, need to be done now; 1–B what we would like to do, projects we think are necessary; 1–C maybe can be dropped off. We have those levels.

    So it has been prioritized and cut in several different ways, so we can again sit down and talk about 160 different projects and see which ones we really do feel are the most critical and which ones we think are important to do, but if we haven't got the funding clearly we can't do them.

 Page 305       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SERRANO. Right. But are there any that always sort of jump out at you, where if you don't take care of them over a period of time, it would create a major problem?

    Mr. HANTMAN. You are showing me level 2. I think Mr. Serrano is talking about the most important ones.

    Mr. PREGNALL. For example, Mr. Serrano, under priority 2, cyclical maintenance, replacement of the Longworth roof at the 6th and 7th floors. There are some leaks in that roof today. If the project is deferred——

    Mr. SERRANO. Today. Meaning today?

    Mr. HANTMAN. Probably today.

    Mr. WALSH. Especially today.

    Mr. PREGNALL. We can defer that project certainly. But that roof replacement then becomes a need for next year. At some point that has to be dealt with. We can continue maintaining, as the air conditioning system that you saw the photograph of, but at some point the life expectancy of that system is gone and we need to replace it.

    There is a judgment call here that we need to work out with the committee. Can we continue maintaining that roof for another 3 to 5 years? Certainly. That maintenance cost increases. But does the need to replace the roof go away? No, it does not.
 Page 306       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. HANTMAN. As long as again that doesn't interfere with structural problems, rusting out the steel below.

Next Hearing Segment(2)