Lapas attēli

center which are no longer supported by the vendor. There are no plans to invest in making these systems and applications year 2000 compliant.

If the requested funding is received and all systems applications are re-engineered and placed into production, there should be no additional cost for the year 2000.

Question. Have the Capitol Police developed any contingency plans in the event the systems fail on January 1, 2000.

Answer. Yes. There are two options dependent on actions and approval of the Senate Sergeant at Arms. The first option would require the Sergeant at Arms to retain the current development application UFO on the mainframe computer where dates would be expanded and code written to deal with failures. Secondly, code is currently being written to move the data files off the mainframe to existing PC based servers. Should funding in fiscal year 1999 not be approved, one of these options will have to be implemented until funding to re-engineer the applications is obtained.

Question. How many data interfaces does the Police have with external organizations? Describe how the Police is working with those organizations to develop mutually agreed to data formats for exchanging information.

Answer. The USCP has two data interfaces with external organizations. Discussions between the Capitol Police Systems Administrator and Metropolitan Police have determined that the interface to the Metropolitan Police Department's WALES/NCIC system does not include date processing and is not in danger of failing. The system has already been upgraded to provide license expiration dates into the year 2000. The Capitol Police is replacing all dumb terminals with PC's running Emulation software which are Year 2000 compliant.

The National Finance Center interface has the same PC based Emulation software used for the Metropolitan Police connection. The USCP relies on two applications from the Architect of the Capitol used for communication with the National Finance Center which are planned by the AOC for replacement to make them year 2000 compatible. The National Finance Center provides data files on tape each pay period. A request is being prepared to have those data files include a 4 digit year.


PERSONNEL INCREASE Question. Last year's bill included funding for 1,255 FTE's. This year, you are requesting two additional FTE’sone for public relations and one for the labor-management office. Please explain why these two new positions are needed, and how these functions are currently handled and staffed.

Answer. We have requested one FTE to serve in the Public Information Office. Currently, this office is staffed by one Sergeant who is responsible for managing the entire public information and public relations effort for

the Department. At the direction of the Capitol Police Board, the Department is undertaking a comprehensive crime prevention effort which will address the safety and security needs of the House and Senate offices within the Capitol Complex as well as state and district offices around the country. There is a significant need for this program, however, it will greatly increase the workload of the Public Information Office beyond the capability of the one person assigned there. The civilian who will fill this position will assist in preparing informational items and scheduling seminars and presentations for members and staff.

As a result of the Congressional Accountability Act, a coilective bargaining unit has been established within the Department and we are in the early stages of negotiating a contract with the union. We are currently using an outside expert on a contract basis to assist us, but we need to establish a Labor Relations Office to handle the ongoing contract administration, grievance process, etc.

UNIONIZATION STATUS Question. What is the current status of unionization efforts in the Capitol Police under the Congressional Accountability Act?

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 Department.

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 unit in several grievances which have been resolved. A number of Unfair Labor Practice charges 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.


1998 COLA Increase

Question. The Capitol Police is requesting $2.3 million for mandatory pay and related costs. Last year, you requested $1.4 million for the COLA. Was the COLA approved?

Answer. Yes it was. The President signed Executive Order 13071 on December 29, 1997 effecting a 2.3 percent across-the-board cost of living increase for federal executive branch employees. Locality based comparability pay for the Washington DC area was increased by a net amount of 0.15 percent. Sunday / Holiday Pay and Night Differential

Question. The Capitol Police is requesting $2.44 million for Sunday and Holiday pay and Night Differential. Is additional authorizing legislation required if funding were provided?

Answer. In the administrative provisions of last year's appropriation bill, the USCP was directed to establish and maintain unified schedules of rates of basic pay for members and civilian employees whose appointing authority is an officer of the House as well as the Senate. This schedule will take effect upon approval of the Committee on House Oversight and the Committee on Rules and Administration. A proposed schedule has been developed and is currently pending before these committees.

If the requested funding for Sunday and Holiday and Night Differentials is approved, the Board will amend the unified schedule to include these rates and resubmit to the committees for approval.

Question. How does the current pay and benefit package of the Capitol Police compare to local area law enforcement agencies, and would an appropriation of your full request of $2.44 million bring parity with the Capitol Police and other local law enforcement agencies?

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.

CIVILIAN MERIT INCREASE PROGRAM Question. You are requesting $75,000 for a civilian merit increase program. What is the purpose of this program? How is it different from other legislative branch entities?

Answer. Merit pay is a performance recognition program whereby employees receive compensation in recognition of extraordinary performance or contributions. Merit increases are distinguished from longevity increases, also referred to as "within-grade” increases, in that the focus is to reward employees for extraordinary performance and not time in grade.

Merit pay authority has been and is utilized by the other employing authorities under the House Employees Position Classification Act, i.e. House Officers, (Clerk, CAO, etc.) pursuant to the "Classification Guidelines.

NATIONAL FINANCE CENTER UPDATE Question. What is the status of the integration of the House and Senate Capitol Police payroll systems at the National Finance Center?

Answer. When I appeared before this Committee last year, I indicated that the personnel and payroll systems for House-funded positions were scheduled for conversion to NFC on March 30, 1997. I am pleased to report that this transfer took place on that date and that 100 percent of eligible employees were paid, with a continuing record since of 100 percent payment processing through the NFC automated system.

Further, on March 1, 1998, the Department will complete the conversion of all Senate-funded USCP positions to the NFC system. For the first time in the history of the USCP, the conversion of House and Senate-funded positions to NFC will achieve the long pursued goal of a unified payroll, the results of which will confer major impact on the Department's ability to more effectively manage many of its administrative functions.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the long-standing support of this Committee in making a unified payroll for the USCP a reality. I can tell you from making my rounds periodically at roll call, that this change has had a profound impact on the morale of the troops as complaints about payroll have virtually stopped.

GENERAL EXPENSE BUDGET Question. The request for the General Expense budget is $8.4 million, an increase of $5.3 million from last year's enacted level. It is my understanding that several new components have been requested in this budget, which make up a significant amount of the requested increase, and are necessary due to the increased level of Capitol Police responsibilities and their expanding and evolving mission.

Please give a brief description of the new components requested in your General Expense budget and the need for these new programs.


Object Class

Increase Travel

$345 Anticipated increase in official travel of the department due to expanded

role related to the mission. This object class has been under estimated
in recent years, forcing the department to reprogram money from

other object classes and accounts. Rent, Communications and Utilities

54 This increase is attributed to increased costs of copier leases, cell phone

costs and other equipment leases. Other Services: Hazardous Materials Program

260 Tuition for officers and civilians

133 Medical and Physical Standards Development

100 Information Security Systems

500 Net decreases in other estimates

(55) Telecommunications

470 Computer Services

2,415 Subtotal

1,007 Supplies and Materials

158 The requested increase is to cover increased costs of fuel, oil, uniforms

and operational supplies. Capitol Assets:

Life-cycle Replacement of Physical Security equipment and systems 1,662 Vehicle Replacements

362 Specialty Equipment

202 Electronic Equipment

25 Net increases in other estimates

39 Subtotal

2,290 Question. The largest increases are $1,007,000 for computer services and $2.3 million for capital assets. What computer services are needed? Since there is a study of police management and financial systems being conducted, shouldn't we wait for that study before funding additional computer expenditures?

Answer. There are several issues surrounding the fiscal year 1999 request for computer services. The first issue is that the USCP has been supported for computer services in the past by the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms. At the direction of the Senate Committee on Appropriations,

the USCP 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. 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.

This management review is currently in the planning stages. Given the current state of our systems and the timing of the Year 2000 issue, there is a universal consensus that new systems will be required. Regardless of the specific recommendations of the management review, funding will be needed as soon as possible to resolve the current situation.

Question. Please provide me with more detail regarding the $2.3 million for capital assets. Specifically, what physical security equipment and systems need to be replaced?

Answer. Of the $2.3 million increase for capital assets, $1,663,000 is for a lifecycle replacement schedule for physical security equipment and systems. The noyear funding provided to date is dedicated to replacing existing systems that are failing and obsolete. The funding does not allow for the wholesale replacement of all security systems. Additionally, there is no funding identified for new security systems and equipment requests, or the upgrade of security systems on a periodic basis on projected equipment life-cycles.

The request for fiscal year 1999 puts into place a process and annual budget to allow for the continued replacement of older equipment, to procure new systems for new requirements, and establish an orderly security equipment upgrade. It prevents the need for wholesale replacement of security systems through no-year funding by establishing a fully funded physical security program.

or the remaining $637,000, an increase in vehicle replacements is requested in the amount of $362,000. This amount will allow for the USCP to "catch up" with its original schedule of replacements. In the past two fiscal years, funds for this object class were necessarily diverted to cover the costs of protective services.

Finally, $266,000 is requested to purchase weapons, training equipment, thermal imagers, night sights and miscellaneous equipment.

Replacement CCTV Monitors

$35,000 Replacement CCTV Cameras

50,000 Purchase SCIF Alarm Systems

60,000 Duress Alarms for Committee

63,000 Replacement Metal Detectors

100,000 Upgrade Members Duress Alarms

125,000 Preventative Maintenance Contract

130,000 Card Access Systems Installations

150,000 Intrusion Alarm Systems .....

250,000 Replacement X-ray Machines


Total, Physical Security Equipment and Services

1,663,000 CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS AND PROPERTY Question. In looking at a summary of offenses involving property on the Capitol grounds for the period fiscal years 1996–1997, I note that the total number of crimes involving burglaries, stolen automobiles, office thefts, has increased over 30 percent.

To what do you attribute this escalation in crimes against property, and what steps are you taking to increase security on the Capitol grounds in an effort to bring these statistics down?

Answer. You are correct that property crime bounced back up last year after a large decline the previous year. To put it in perspective, it's still 5 percent below the previous year, fiscal year 1995, and 30 percent below fiscal year 1993.

As we saw the property crime numbers going back up, we took a number of steps to get them back to the lower level of fiscal year 1996. We seem to be back on track. So far this fiscal year, with almost five months gone, we're showing a decrease of 30 percent over the same period last year. Swings on the order of 30 percent in property crime is more than one would expect from year to year. One possible explanation is the two-year Congressional cycle. The biennial office moves, particularly on the House side, create an opportunity for theft as equipment is left in the hallways and large numbers of contract employees are brought in to do the work. Also, the new staff may not be as security-conscious as those who have been around for a while. We are taking steps which include a “Dear Colleague” letter to staff, distribution of literature and having building patrols visit offices. We are having our divisions coordinate with CID more intensely and increasing plainclothes surveillance. We have had discussions with the Architect of the Capitol regarding control of contractors.

We take crime in the complex very seriously and move aggressively when we see patterns of crime which need to be addressed.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »