Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

of getting out of that room, the exits are all going the wrong way, people are going crossways. I really do not know how we would get people out of that room, with the President and the Vice President and all of the Cabinet, the leaders of both parties in the Congress and the Joint Chiefs. It is just a nightmare.

And the more we thought about the problem, of how all the exits are now blocked by the press, we want to ask you to study how would we get out of there, how would we get the Justices, the Joint Chiefs, the President, the Vice President, the Speaker, the majority leader, and all of the people who are in there and their guests, how would we get out of there if there was some calamity in that area? That highlights the basic problem of just living and trying to get through the rotunda on a daily basis. It is loaded with tourists. We try to find ways around it. I end up sometimes going over and going through the Speaker's passageway in order to get through to the other side.

I think we are getting to the point where we are planning all this access by the tourists outside, but we are forgetting who lives inside and the dangers that are inside these buildings. So I would urge you to study that, and tell us, one, how are we going to deal with an emergency, and, two, how are we going to deal with just the routine activities that come from a joint session, when it is not the State of the Union Message, and we are trying to exit over there and all of the exits are blocked by the press. It just does not seem right.

And I think, somehow, my solution would be to put the press down on the first floor. But I do not know how we are going to do it. Somehow we are going to have to get out of there. And it is extremely frustrating to try to do that.

We waited for 35-45 minutes for people who were in the gallery to get back to my office. And my office is right off of that rotunda, over there next to the Speaker's office. Now, that is a long time.

I think that the system is broken down as far as just the ability to empty that Chamber when we have a joint session. And it is not your problem, I know, but I think it is our total problem.

Mr. ABRECHT. It is our problem, absolutely. I absolutely agree with you, Senator.

In fact, interestingly enough, we were concerned about this problem for several years. And that day, we had placed a video camera up in the gallery around Statuary Hall in order to film what a mess it was so that we could, frankly, use that as some impetus to get some change.

We have the videotape and we have prepared some correspondence to the Board, to say that this problem needs to be addressed. It is a life safety problem. And you are absolutely correct, there is no proper exit through that very important corridor during this event. You are 100 percent correct.

I actually took no offense at all. You were completely correct when you approached me about it. And I wish I could have told you I could do something right then, but it is a systemic problem that needs some planning, rather than addressing the way it is now. It will not work; you are correct.

Senator STEVENS. There was a novel written about 15 years ago about an attack that went on during a joint session. You ought to

read it sometime. It is a nightmare. It is increasingly a nightmare now, because of the increase in the number of people who are coming in while we are trying to go out. So I think we really need a plan to deal with that.

Mr. ABRECHT. There will be a plan for the next joint session.

Mr. LIVINGOOD. We have taken some action, too, already to alleviate the problem you ran into specifically. And there were some other plans that had been in place you did not see which, of course, we did not have to use.

Senator STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. LIVINGOOD. We had emergency plans to move the Congress and guests. We had police officers positioned at various locations. We had practiced this three times in the early morning hours.

Mr. CASEY. At 3 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Three o'clock in the morning. Just for this purpose, sir, prior to this, because we realized this also.

The press were a problem, because we had an unprecedented number.

Senator STEVENS. Yes, indeed, there were.

Mr. LIVINGOOD. We have since, as the Chief said, discussed this. I have discussed this on the House side with the Speaker, and we have a contingency plan already that we probably like to place at the next one. And it will require action of both the House and the Senate.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I think the participants over there are contributing to it to a certain extent, because we used to have order in terms of who went out and the right exit, more or less. The President went first, then the Justices, then the Cabinet, then the Joint Chiefs, and then Members of the House and Senate would go out different ways. It is everybody for himself now. There is no order there at all in terms of exiting a joint session. And I think that must be restored.

But that is not your problem. That is internal, inside, before they come out. But once they come out, the ability to exit that joint session depends upon the access that is provided by the police.

Thank you very much.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Casey.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

We do have a vote. So the subcommittee will stand in recess until I can get over there and get back. I apologize to our second witness, who is Gary Sisco, Secretary of the Senate. But we have to delay until the Senate business concludes.

[A brief recess was taken.]

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Question. How does base pay and benefits of the Capitol Police compare with other legislative branch police and other local police?

Answer.

Legislative Branch Police Agencies

There are only two other Legislative Branch police forces: The Library of Congress Police and the Government Printing Office Police. Members of the Library Police are currently compensated using the Capitol Police salary scale. They do, however, receive Holiday Pay when required to work on a federal holiday. U.S. Capitol Police members receive only compensatory time.

The base salary scale for the members of the Government Printing Office Police is lower than the Capitol Police scale. They do however receive Holiday Pay, a 15 percent shift differential, and Sunday premium pay.

Other Local Agencies

There are seven other police agencies of reasonably similar size and scope in the Washington Metropolitan area: Two executive branch agencies (The United States Secret Service Uniformed Division and the United States Park Police), two city departments (The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and the Alexandria Police Department) and three county departments (Montgomery, Prince George's and Fairfax).

While each has a different base salary scheme, the United States Capitol Police salary is generally in the middle of the range when officers of similar levels of experience are compared (e.g. starting salary, five years of service, ten years of service). Two notable discrepancies are found when base salaries are compared: Capitol Police Officers with many years of service are the lowest paid officers in the group, and ranking officials (Captains, Inspectors and Deputy Chiefs) are paid substantially less than their counterparts in the other agencies.

Comparing benefits is considerably more complicated than comparing base pay, particularly since two states, the federal executive branch and the District of Columbia are involved. For the purposes of the issues before the Committee the following specific information is provided:

Holiday Pay.-All seven Departments pay Holiday Pay when a member is required to work on a holiday.

Shift Differential.-All seven Departments provide some type of additional compensation for work outside normal business hours. The amounts and hours of coverage vary. The scheme we have proposed is that included in Title V of the U.S. Code covering most executive branch employees, including the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division and the United States Park Police.

Sunday Premium Pay. The two executive branch agencies, the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division and the United States Park Police, provide this differential to their personnel. We have modeled our proposal on theirs, which is found in Title V of the United States Code.

Question. The Board should be commended for supporting the Police budget officer, Bruce Holmberg in modernizing the accounting and budget functions of the police. Please update us on your efforts to cross service your accounting function. When will that be completed? Will there be any reimbursement cost associated with cross servicing?

Answer. Our Office of Financial Management has had several meetings with representatives of the GAO. Based on these meetings, indications are that this arrangement would meet our requirements while not imposing any burden on GAO. We are still in the process of providing information on our requirements and will be entering into a Memorandum of Understanding in the near future.

A preliminary decision was made to focus on the basic accounting system for implementation by October 1 of this year. Later we will add other modules including inventory systems and procurement.

There will be start-up costs and reimbursement associated with the cross-servicing. We have the amount of $100,000 in our current budget and have included this amount again in fiscal year 1999. At this time, GAO believes that this initiative can be accomplished within these amounts.

Question. The Police's financial, human resources and information resources management systems and processes are currently being reviewed. The Police need significant modernization of their systems. Currently there are only 3 individuals in the budget office. Will these 3 individuals be able to implement the new systems? If not, are the police prepared to devote the necessary resources to help implement these new systems?

Answer. To date, we are still in the preliminary stages of providing information. As the review progresses I am certain that we will receive recommendations regarding the numbers and levels of staff. GAO has expressed some concerns along these lines for the Office of Financial Management. They have suggested a full-time detailee for the duration of the accounting project. We are looking at options including having GAO provide a detailee on a reimbursable basis.

Once the review is completed, we will take action consistent with the recommendations.

Question. Please update the Committee on the unionization of the force.

Answer. The following is a chronology of activities undertaken to date:

October 1996.-Petition For Certification as exclusive bargaining representative by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Fraternal Order of Police, International Union of Police Associations.

January 31, 1997.-Board of Directors, Office of Compliance Decision Order Excluding certain divisions of the USCP.

February 24, 1997.-Decision and Direction of Election issued by Board of Directors, Office of Compliance.

April 1-2, 1997.-Election held at USCP Headquarters (Challenges sufficient to affect results). International Union of Police Associations eliminated.

May 12, 1997-Decision and Direction on Challenged Ballots.

June 17-18, 1997.-Second Election Runoff between International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Fraternal Order of Police.

June 23, 1997-Union demand for negotiation of Collective Bargaining Agreement received, with notice that proposed Ground Rules will be submitted within 30 days.

June 27, 1997.-Certification of Representative certifies the Fraternal Order of Police as exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit.

November 21, 1997.-Union's Ground Rules Proposal submitted to the Depart

ment.

December 15, 1997.-Department Counter Proposal submitted to Union.
January 1998.-Negotiation of Ground Rules Agreement begins.
February 9, 1998.-Ground Rules Agreement signed.

March 1998.-Contract Proposals to be exchanged.

April 1998.-Counter-proposals, modifications, to be exchanged.

April 23, 1998.-Actual negotiation of Collective Bargaining Agreement to begin. In general, relations between the FOP and the Department management have been business-like and cordial. The FOP has represented members of the bargaining have been filed, all of which have either been settled or resolved in the Department's favor. The volume of labor relations work generated has been heavy, and the additional FTE for a Director of Labor Relations is urgently needed.

Question. The Board has requested $362,000 for replacement vehicles. Does the Board plan to retire the vehicles they are replacing? If so, could you provide the Committee with an estimate of the trade-in value of those vehicles and the total balance necessary to meet the request.

Answer. The total amount requested for vehicle replacements is $498,000. The trade-in value of the replaced vehicles is not factored in to our estimate. Traditionally, we receive very little for the vehicles that are traded because of their overall condition and high mileage. The 16 vehicles that we plan to replace all have in excess of 75,000 miles ranging up to 110,000 miles. Of the eight motorcycles, 2 have been declared "totaled".

For the twenty-five vehicles planned for replacement, we have received estimates ranging from $64,000 to $80,000. The net cost of the new vehicles will range from $418,000 to $434,000 if the trade-in value is received.

Question. Last year the Police Board requested and the AOC included in its budget request $350,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $350,000 for fiscal year 1999 for funds to renovate the K-9 facility. The Appropriations Committees provided $200,000 in fiscal year 1998. Since last year, the police officers have done a substantial amount of the work at the K-9 themselves. Has the AOC's office done any work with the $200,000 provided? Have they reevaluated the cost of that project in light of the work that has been done?

Answer. Although the U.S. Capitol Police have performed a creditable job in cleaning out the existing facility, none of the mechanical, electrical, plumbing or other repairs have been undertaken. These are presently under design. The plan for fiscal year 1998 is to renovate the portion of the building that accommodates the canines by replacing the heating, ventilating and air conditioning system, upgrade the electrical system, install adequate kennel drainage and plumbing, resurfacing the floor, and replacing doors, door frames, windows, etc. as required to permit housing of canines in the building. During fiscal year 1999, the administrative portion of the building will be renovated with the $200,000 funding increment programmed for that year. The fiscal year 2000 increment will focus on exterior site problem, especially drainage around the building and the training field. The final programmed increment of $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 will complete the site work by addressing the parking, relocation of the trailers, and any final work required.

Question. Last year the Committee gave the Office of the Architect $100,000 of the $150,000 requested for OSHA repairs to the off-site delivery facility. The Board is requesting the additional $50,000 this year. Of the original $100,000, what work has been completed to date? Is the total $50,000 still required to complete the project?

Answer. A preliminary survey of the off-site delivery facility (P St. Warehouse) has been completed, and a scope of services has been developed. An architect/engineer will be retained to complete a phased plan for implementation of the OSHA repairs and related improvements. Phased implementations of the repairs will begin in late spring or early summer. The additional $50,000 requested in fiscal year 1999 will be required to complete the project.

Question. In fiscal year 1998 the Police budget included a request for $2,140,000 for telecommunications and computer, upgrades. For fiscal year 1999, the Police are requesting $1,477,000 for computers. Last year the question was raised whether that substantial of an increase for computers was a one-time increase or should we expect continuing high budgets in this area. Can we expect the normal non-recurring budget to be in the area of $600,000 per year?

Answer. There are several issues surrounding the fiscal year 1999 request for computer services. The first issue is that the USCP has received support for computer services in the past from the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms. At the direction of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the UŠCP has included this cost in its own budget for fiscal year 1999, while the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms has omitted this item from their own budget request.

The fiscal year 1999 request for USCP computer services totals $1,007,000. Of this amount, $207,000 is for maintenance and service contracts currently in effect through the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms and some miscellaneous hardware and software. The remaining $800,000 is for systems replacement in the USCP.

The systems referred to include the Inventory Control System, Time and Attendance, Personnel Administration, Injury System, Congressional Employee Locator System, Report Writing System and the Expense Control System (accounting). The migration of the House and Senate payrolls to the NFC will be completed in March, 1998. In addition, meetings are currently on-going for a planned cross-servicing arrangement with the General Accounting Office for the accounting system. Timelines are being developed consistent with a planned effective date of October 1, 1998.

The remaining systems currently reside on an antiquated platform on the Senate Computer Center's mainframe computer which is no longer supported by the vendor. Further, these systems are not Year 2000 compliant, and due to their antiquated state, there are no plans to make them compliant. Even today, we are beginning to experience some problems in our applications which track leave categories and longevity dates. In summary, these systems are inadequate, are no longer supported by the vendor, are not Year 2000 compliant, and will not be supported by the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms in the future.

The funds requested for the above systems replacement are to cover costs of developing specifications, vendor analyses, systems and applications development, testing, training, licensing fees, reporting systems, maintenance and systems integration. Finally, an interface will need to be developed to integrate data from the legacy systems to the new systems.

The fiscal year 1999 request for telecommunications and computer services is broken down as follows:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Question. What is your estimated total cost to address the year 2000 problem? What has been spent to date? What is being requested in your fiscal year 1999 budget? What is your cost estimate beyond the year 2000?

Answer. Approximately $700,000 was spent in fiscal year 1997 by the Office of the Sergeant at Arms to replace all computer hardware and office automation software. Although this was not directly related to the year 2000 problem, by replacing all the hardware, it is now year 2000 compliant and allowed PC based applications to become year 2000 compliant.

The amount of $800,000 is requested in fiscal year 1999 to replace systems that are operating on an antiquated platform in the Senate Sergeant at Arms's computer

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »