Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

is a significant outlay of funds, and each office has to plan a little bit ahead in order to fund it.

We are talking about-what?-$30,000 to $50,000 or so to put the equipment in, and a disruption of your office for a period of several weeks. So it is a big process, but it has absolutely incredible, almost revolutionary access to information that I think is well worth the time.

Other questions?

Mr. FAZIO. I would just like to, Mr. Chairman, I hadn't had a chance to talk to Mr. Mutersbaugh earlier and I don't want to be repetitive, but following up on Mr. Miller's questions, I am assuming that your budget may not be one of those that will be going down. You may be actually having to incur additional costs as we attempt to upgrade the systems, not only individually in each office, but for the institution at large. Is there some truth to my assumption?

Mr. MUTERSBAUGH. Well, there is a very large calculus going on right now with regard to all of that, and I appreciate the positive thinking in this matter, because it is easier to provide better grades of technology with more money than with less money.

One of the initiatives that we do have underway now in the HIS arena is what we are going to call, demonstrate, Office 2000 where we have investigated trying to find not so much looking at what computers are going to look like in the year 2050, or some of the Star Trek things which are very nice, but more realistically, what can we do to provide the type of access that the Speaker is looking for when he talks about the cyberspace Congress and so forth.

To that end, we are going to try to set up a model office, if you will, and within Mr. Faulkner's purview, we are looking at different alternatives in terms of system structures that we can actually use ourselves to be the guinea pigs, if you will, in the process so that by the time it is exported to the Members, we will have a higher degree of confidence in its functionality and so forth.

PURPOSE FOR MOVING HIS UNDER CAO

Mr. PACKARD. Would the gentleman yield for just a minute in respect to the questions? We have had some discussions on that, at least with Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Mutersbaugh. I have anyway, and I think one of the functions or purposes of moving the HIS under the Chief Administrative Officer was to try to avoid duplication that we have seen in printing and other areas gradually emerge over the years, and as we are emerging into this electronic age here on Capitol Hill, one of the goals that we would like to see is that we don't allow a duplicating effort in this area, which could be huge in terms of cost. No question about it.

The Library of Congress is moving in that area. GPO is moving in that area, and, of course, HIS has already moved in that area. I think that one of the one of the reasons for Mr. Faulkner having HIS under his umbrella is to allow him to try to target this remarkably promising technology in ways to avoid competing for doing the same things done by other agencies in the Federal Government.

I would hope that that would be one of the results. Maybe you would like to respond to that.

CUSTOMER SERVICE

Mr. FAULKNER. Actually, what we are doing is taking our role as being customer-focused very seriously. The customer is the boss, and we have many customers on Capitol Hill. Not only Members and committee leadership and House leadership, but every individual employee and ultimately the constituents who come up here for service, either writing in, calling in or ultimately showing up for different things. So we are beginning some very proactive user outreach. Already we have been spending the last few weeks going around to the freshman offices, both Republican and Democrat, and just asking them not only in the information area, but in all areas, "how are we doing?" How was the move in? How was your first few weeks in Congress, and how our different services can be improved. We are hoping to open up many customer-focus groups, because ultimately, given the wide range of I mean as Don mentioned here, the literally Star Trek proportions that the cyberspace of Congress can send us in the future, sitting down with our users and saying what do you really need in your offices? What do you want on your screens? How do you want to interact with your constituents given the new electronic opportunities? And then from there working backward saying what do we need to deliver? Do we need that in-house? Do we need an outsource to keep up with the evolution of the technology?

And so all of these things are on table and there have been some very lively discussions at all levels, because the opportunities are endless, but the different scenarios are also endless, and how to narrow it down so we can come to both this forum and the oversight committee for guidance is a real challenge.

INCREASED PERFORMANCE THROUGH GREATER PRODUCTIVITY

Mr. FAZIO. Well, we obviously, as we look to Star Trek formats, have to avoid Star War costs. That is one of the things that we have been concerned about in the past is the degree to which our enthusiasm can cause ramp-ups in our budgets which when aggregated and brought to the Floor are hard to explain to Members, even though they all individually benefit from increased productivity and the benefits of rate of information flow. But you know, it always come down to the struggle to live within our means and still increase performance and improve our product.

One of the things that I know that historically we have struggled with is the question of how much leadership do we provide administratively and how much do we let the marketplace determine. Members are increasingly computer-literate, they have their own ideas, they know what they want, and yet it may be that for purposes of compatibility and cost or what have you, those ideas have to be tempered. So what you are telling us is that you are going to be doing a lot of testing, marketing internally before you really present to the Members what is available for their menu selection; is that right?

Mr. FAULKNER. Absolutely.

Mr. FAZIO. Which is a little bit like what, I guess, the House Office Systems Task Force used to do on House Administration. They were accused, however, of being too restrictive and not allowing for

enough, you know, member involvement in the selection process. Do you want to comment on that?

COMPATABILITY ISSUE

Mr. FAULKNER. Again, we want to be very highly interactive. You are right, as everyone moves into the cyber-Congress, I am sure that if you took a survey now of the number of Members who probably have computers at home versus even last Congress or certainly several Congresses ago, there was a dramatic increase in computers every day. There is no one pool of expertise. We certainly want to make sure that much of what we do is off-the-shelf technology.

We are not here to develop new materials. The software catalogs thicken everyday, it seems. On the other front, I agree with you, that each Member is going to have a unique need. User profiles of a rural district versus an urban district, and many others things might factor into the equation. I think another key point is the compatibility issue. As long as what is plugged into the wall can access the central data banks of the Congress, we are very open to the whole issue of letting "1,000 flowers bloom."

Mr. FAZIO. Well, this committee has always been strongly in favor, and I think it has been totally bipartisan, keeping the compatibility at the maximum level, including the other body, including the other agencies like the GAO and GPO and the Library. We wanted to be able to communicate, even if in the short-term people weren't willing to. We wanted to be able to communicate between and among all of the entities.

So far, so good. And we are really, I think, about to move on. The question, however, that I pose is at what pace, because despite the fact that there is a lot of leadership enthusiasm for it, which is healthy, ultimately, as we all know, we are judged on our budget's numbers, and we have to temper our enthusiasm.

SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION

Mr. MUTERSBAUGH. If I could comment further also to clarify for the record that this is not a group of people that is going to go off in the corner and test all of this equipment and say here it is. One of the things that Mr. Faulkner has brought to our organization is the issue of quality, the quality-improving process, total quality management which can be defined as the conformance to the requirements, which is a very important point. And we will be doing things I think it will be a very important part to actually go out and work with the staff to find out what your needs are, what your requirements are, so that when we get to the equation which is the price of nonconformance, that is where we have basically not met your needs and requirements and we have this beautiful system and we are very aware that it cost a lot of money and then still doesn't get the job done.

So we are going to be very focused on doing that and working very closely with Members of Congress to find out exactly what your system needs are, and then we can take those and maybe propose different ways to meet those needs.

Mr. FAULKNER. And then further along that line, with the guidance of this committee and the Oversight committee, which you sit

on both, we hope to have a very good interactive discussion, because again, there are no one right answer. And we want to make sure that there is a very clean and broad-scale consensus and clear consensus before we start moving forward with any major investments.

Mr. FAZIO. I know as a personal fact that many Members are frustrated by the rural district office lack of adequate wiring problem. Many of us don't get to share in the full benefits of what is available, because of things that are way beyond anybody's ability to afford or control here. Hopefully, that will also be changed over time.

LAPTOPS WITH CELLULAR PHONE CAPABILITY

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, thankfully, we are already experimenting in our own office with laptops that have cellular phone capability right inside of them, so a person can literally go back to their district with that briefcase-size, or even now getting smaller and smaller, unit and be fully operational in their district as they are here.

Mr. FAZIO. That is really a great breakthrough.

Mr. PACKARD. I understand that you are also looking at procurement, off-the-shelf in the private sector, if it is more competitive than making minimal choices here on Capitol Hill, and opening up options, all of which I think gives us much more flexibility, and have made it more cost-effective too.

Thank you very much again, Mr. Mutersbaugh. We appreciate you returning to the table.

Mr. MUTERSBAUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

OFFICE OF LAW REVISION COUNSEL

Mr. PACKARD. We do have with us a representative from the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, Mr. Willett.

Would you wish to make a statement and see if there are any questions? I am not aware of any, but nevertheless, if there are, we are happy to have you here to answer them.

Mr. WILLETT. I have a prepared statement before you that I would like to have entered into the record, and if I can summarize it.

Our request this year reflects an increase for annualization of cost-of-living and longevity increases and a modest increase in nonpersonnel expenses. Our law library upkeep has been increasing more rapidly in the last year or two than it has in the past, so there is a little increase for that.

I have requested again in this year's funding, funds to upgrade the U.S. Code computer system. There are funds available for us during the present year, but we are not quite sure whether we will be in a position to go ahead and get the equipment in this year or not. So for that reason I have included an amount to cover the upgrading of the system.

I might indicate to you that the system we have is one of the first systems that was put into operation nearly 15 years ago, and it really hasn't been upgraded to the extent that it should be in order for us to maintain the database, in view of the size of the

code, and to get to the point where we are keeping the database current on a daily basis.

At the present time, we do not have the capability to upgrade every section on a daily basis. We have a capability of, in effect, updating the database each year at the end of the close of a session and then we make all the changes for that particular session of Congress.

PUBLICATION OF U.S. CODE

With respect to the United States Code, we publish a new edition every six years. We are now starting the new edition of the code, the 1994 edition, which will bring us up to the beginning of 1995. We expect it will run approximately 30 to 33 volumes covering some 45,000 pages of data. We have given an okay to print on the first volume, another volume will go to press next week and we will be going to press every two to two-and-a-half weeks until the edition is completed.

We continue to use the database for multiple purposes. One of the purposes is the research and retrieval system on the HIS mainframe and on the Member Information Network. It is used also to produce the U.S. Code on the CD-ROM, which we started about three years ago. In effect, the CD-ROM for every year is a complete edition of the code. You do not have to go to a main edition or supplement of the CD-ROM.

Mr. PACKARD. How often is that updated again?

Mr. WILLETT. We use our database to produce the CD-ROM, so as soon as we have all the laws in for 1994, we will issue a CDROM for the 1994 version of the Code.

Mr. PACKARD. How long is that CD-ROM behind the updating? In other words, it is only up—

Mr. WILLETT. It should take no more than 60 to 90 days between the time we finish the updating of the code until the time the CDROM is produced. The production of the CD-ROM is outside of our control, it is done by others. As to the previous CD-ROM, about two days before we were ready to go on into production, it was discovered that there was a programming error that had shown up for the first time that caused us to question whether the system had skipped various sections of the Code, and thus was not an accurrate version. So we put hold on until the problem was resolved. HIS and the software vendor went through and had it completely analyzed, the database, to see where the problem was and correct it.

Mr. FAZIO. It was a programming error, not a virus that snuck into the code?

Mr. WILLETT. It was not a virus. Something that had never happened in the previous two versions of the CD-ROM. It was a break in the way the database was structured. So it happened that the system would stop in the middle of a section and pick up in the middle of a next section and we didn't know how many sections were affected. We have assurances that it won't happen again.

U.S. CODE ON CD-ROM VS. HARD COPY

Mr. PACKARD. The CD-ROM serves many purposes and certainly hopefully one of them will be that we will not have to do as much

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »