I think all of those projects are maturing at a fairly accurate rate. I think over the next few months you will see more of the tangible result as we get our infrastructure within the office put together. The Library of Congress report, a number of people in my office are reviewing that and working with them now on it.

I am obviously generally supportive of any effort that reduces costs and expands access to the public. I think that there are a number of issues that are still concerning us, and I think that their idea of putting together task forces to address those issues is a good one. We are going to participate in those to be sure that just what you are saying doesn't happen, that there isn't a complete duplication of effort, but a lot of ours is the creation rather than the dissemination.

Mr. PACKARD. Even in the creation prior to dissemination there is a need for coordination; and that is what I would be asking, that you coordinate and make certain that there is consultation with them and I think also with the House Oversight Committee. It would be important for that coordination to be taking place because there is certainly-your interests are in the same direction. Ms. CARLE. Yes.

Mr. PACKARD. Have you seen a decrease in the amount of hard copy, the paperwork as you are moving more and more into electronic information?

Ms. CARLE. Well, some. Because, again, this year has been mostly being sure that we have the processes in place that can adequately do that work; and then we are now in the process of talking with the committees and coming up with some proposals for how Members could better assist us in that in turning us to a little more electronic

Mr. PACKARD. You may wish to submit some of your proposals so that we are aware of what is going on.

Ms. CARLE. Yes, we are.
[The information follows:]

CENTRALIZATION OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS

Presently these is no system to provide a central editing or storage area of final electronic version of committee hearings. This is one area where committees and the Office of Printing Services (CAO) is continuing to provide paper copy and GPO is expending considerable resources to create electronic files. A system is currently being designed to centralize these hearings into a single data base that can be made available to the public with or without having to make printed paper copies.

Mr. PACKARD. Also, I would hope that you would look at the opportunity to produce in the House the product of the hearing rooms and the Floor and other places rather than sending them to GPO or some other place to actually put together the documents themselves. I think equipment such as Docutech may be used to be much more efficient, at least, and maybe just as effective in producing some of the material itself.

Ms. CARLE. A lot of it is a change in mindset

Mr. PACKARD. It is a big change

Ms. CARLE [continuing]. On people using the screen and having the print as a backup.

Mr. PACKARD [continuing]. And during the interim there may be a need for both the printed hard copy and the on-line material in

formation. But I would hope that it leads us to a transition where we see a downsizing of the printed material as we increase the electronic information that is available to all-everybody.

Ms. CARLE. Certainly I applaud you.

Mr. PACKARD. I appreciate that. I have some questions to insert for the record at this point

[The information follows:]

Question. Where have you located this Legislative Resource Center?

Response. The House Building Commission last summer approved the use of B106 of the Cannon House Office Building for the LRC. This is a large unfurnished space, and considerable time and attention has been given by my office and the Architect of the Capitol regarding the design on the facility. At this time, I am becoming concerned that delays beyond my office are beginning to slow the progress on the space. I have contracted the House Building Commission and the Architect with my concerns and am awaiting a reply. I will certainly keep the subcommittee apprised.

Question. Has the Architect shown you the plans for the renovated space? Response. Initial design plans have been provided, however, detailed engineering and structural plans are still pending at this time.

Question. We also have encouraged you to study the current procedures for transmitting hearings, bills and Committee reports to GPO for printing or for converting them to electronic formats. We see a number of possibilities to capture the input where it is created, in Committee hearing rooms and so forth, and storing the transcripts in equipment such as our Docutech, right here in the House. It may not have to go to GPO at all for printing. Have you made any progress on that? Response. Projects to Advance Electronic Dissemination

SGML/STANDARD COMPUTER LANGUAGE

Over the last several weeks considerable effort has been made to resolve the difficult issue of standard use of computer languages. As all projects are designed and advanced, it becomes more apparent that committee, Member offices and the support offices need to have either compatible or standard languages when passing these electronic files. At this time, MICROCOMP, a GPO developed language for printing, is the final language that files are created into. While this has worked regarding printing, it is a difficult and evolving language that slows various computerization efforts. It has been suggested that the House work with the Senate to develop a new standard. However, this major issue is yet to be resolved. Currently we stand on the brink of implementing various projects. It would be advantageous to have this central issue resolved in order to prevent future design changes should MICROCOMP be replaced.

CENTRALIZATION OF LANS

The first steps taken regarding the computerization of my offices was a detailed inventory on the existing and needed equipment to begin to link all offices together. While this seemed a basic task, the configuration of House communication/computer support systems and the lack of equipment compatibility standards has complicated this task considerably. Centralization and linkage is now almost complete.

BILL 2000

This project entails the linkage of the Office of Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Operations, HIR and the GPO to pass along a single electronic file on introduced legislation and accompanying committee reports. The initial design of the system has been circulated to interested parties and implementation of a test process is forthcoming pending resolutions on regarding the use of MICROCOMP, SGML or other base computer language.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

Various technical connections have been made between the GPO and the Office of Official Reporters. At this time, various tests have been conducted regarding transmission of files on the text of the daily Record. These tests have proven very successful and expansion of the project is not pending. I will be recommending to the Committee on House Oversight and your subcommittee that a request to Members be made regarding the editing of remarks and the submission of electronic cop

ies whenever possible. These modifications would greatly enhance our abilities to expand and advance this project.

Mr. PACKARD. Any other questions? Thank you very much, Ms. Carle.

And now, Mr. Faulkner, we go to the Sergeant at Arms.

Mr. FAULKNER. I'll submit page 24 for the record.

[The information follows:]

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

(See Pages 60-61 Subcommittee Print)

For salaries and expenses for the Office of the Clerk. $14.844,000. Included in this request is $11,984,000 for personnel and $2.860.000 for non-personnel.

At this time I will introduce the Honorable Robin H. Carle, the Clerk of the House who is

here to testify on behalf of her FY '97 budget request.

OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS

Mr. FAULKNER. On page 25, we have the material relating to the Sergeant at Arms and with salaries and expenses. With Sergeant at Arms we are looking at $3,889,000. Included in this request is $3,445,000 for personnel and $414,000 for nonpersonnel.

Mr. PACKARD. Welcome, Bill, to the committee.

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PACKARD. We will be happy to hear an opening statement, if you would like. Then you can summarize your prepared statement if you wish, because all the statements will be entered in the record as submitted, and then we will ask some specific questions regarding your submittal.

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor and a privilege to appear before you today to present the fiscal year 1997 budget request for the Office of the Sergeant at Arms.

SERGEANT AT ARMS CHANGES IN OPERATIONS

As the committee is aware, 1995 was a year marked by significant change regarding the operations and responsibilities of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms. In accordance with the reorganization plan I presented to the committee last year, the Office of the Sergeant at Arms now administers a portion of the duties formally assigned to the Office of the Doorkeeper and also manages the House parking functions, which were previously the responsibility of the Architect of the Capitol.

Upon assuming responsibility for these functions I conducted a management survey to determine if the level in quality of services being performed met the operational requirements of the House of Representatives and also to ascertain if these functions could be streamlined and made more cost-effective.

With regard to the Office of the Doorkeeper, I evaluated the duties of each position we inherited. Based upon that study three significant changes were made:

First, I felt it would be appropriate to transfer 13 positions to the control of the U.S. Capitol Police and have them designated as security aides. These positions are around the third floor visitor galleries, and their duties consist mainly of crowd control and security screening, which clearly falls under the auspices of the U.S. Capitol Police.

Secondly, I identified an additional 13 positions which could be eliminated without affecting the level of service. This effort resulted in a significant cost savings by reducing a combined total of 26 FTEs from the Office of the Sergeant at Arms.

Finally, the remaining 23 FTE positions were designated as Chamber security. These personnel have been provided with extensive security training from the U.S. Capitol Police, and their duties have been redirected towards proactive and preventive security on the House Floor.

The net effect of this reorganization is a more efficient, effective operation which can better address the security requirements of the House Chambers.