Lapas attēli

CAPITOL COMPLEX INTEGRATED SECURITY FACILITIES PROGRAM Question. Mr. Hantman, could you explain the Capitol Complex Integrated Security Facilities Program, and the amount of funding included in your budget request for this program?

Answer. The U.S. Capitol Police have identified a need to provide an integrated security facilities program for their physical facility needs. Several facility related issues have arisen that are very critical to the operations of the Capitol Police and the safety of Members, staff and visitors. These items require careful scoping and planning to be addressed before large sums are invested in facility improvements. These facility problems need to be addressed as soon as possible. Rather than addressing these piecemeal, funds are requested to hire a contractor to provide a conceptual master design plan to determine how best to address these critical problems. The U.S. Capitol Police Board views these needs as a critical element of the overall security plan for the Capitol Complex.

The Police facilities have remained essentially unchanged for the past twenty years. During this period, the Department has grown both in size of personnel and statutory responsibility. The Police have compensated by utilizing other resources which are no longer available. For example, FBI training facilities at Quantico, Virginia made available to the Police in the past by the FBI for Entry Level Training of new Recruits, Officer Survival and Dignitary Protection training are no longer available due to the FBI's own training requirements.

The first major concern is the Off-Site Delivery Inspection Center located at Half and “pe St. S.E. (South Capitol Street Warehouse). The Off-Site Delivery Center will soon be required to screen vehicles delivering items to the House Office Buildings. This additional responsibility will compound existing safety concerns, and exceed the capabilities of the existing facility. Required increased staffing will create an additional work space problem.

This facility is also causing significant employee health and safety concerns. It is housed in a fairly dilapidated leased warehouse. Further, it lacks adequate ventilation for the exhaust fumes from the vehicles being inspected. Funds were requested by the Architect's office in fiscal year 1998 to address these concerns. The bathrooms, locker areas and office space are unacceptable, and funds also have been requested by the Architect's office in fiscal year 1999 to improve these conditions. Both of these temporary improvement projects were requested in fiscal year 1998. Partial funding was provided for the compliance issues but the locker and associated modifications were deferred.

The second issue to be studied is the lack of adequate training facilities. At this time, the Training Division has access to a total of only three training classrooms. None of these areas is large enough to accommodate essential programs such as Physical Conditioning and Defensive Tactics.

All three current classrooms are located in the Ford House Office Building. Two of the three existing classroom spaces are immediately adjacent to occupied congressional staff offices. Their close proximity to occupied staff offices severely inhibits the Police's ability to conduct essential practical exercises and scenario training in police legal labs and officer survival training. The existing space has no provisions for locker rooms, or shower facilities following physical conditioning training. Police officers are forced to change clothes in the buildings public restrooms.

Finally, there currently exists a critical need to acquire exterior training areas to conduct Vehicle Pursuit and Evasive Tactics, Motorbike, Bicycle Patrol, Civil Disturbance Unit, Ceremonial Unit, Officer Safety and Survival, Dignitary Protection, Motorcade Movement and Security, Physical Conditioning, and Defensive Tactics training. Storage facilities for training aids will also be required.

Lastly is the proposed relocation of the Vehicle Maintenance Facility. This facility is far too small to allow for safety zones to be established around grinders, welding equipment, eye wash stations, lift and fire extinguishers. In general, this facility has continual problems with the roof leaking and the inability of the air-conditioning system to properly cool a building with metal sides and roof. Additionally, while the need for a larger facility is critical, safety and environmental considerations pose the greatest concerns. The building is infested with mice and other insects, and all efforts by the AOC to exterminate them have proven to be unsuccessful. This facility is located within the perimeter of the coal yard. Coal dust from the coal yard creates poor air quality and results in a coal dust coating on everything contained within this facility. The lack of a vehicle exhaust ventilation system further contributes to these health concerns.

The above concerns are separate from anticipated repairs and expenditures required to bring these facilities into compliance with the existing standards established by the Occupational Safety and Heath Administration (OSHA).






Senator BENNETT. The subcommittee will reconvene. Our second witness is the Honorable Gary Sisco, Secretary of the Senate. We welcome you, sir. This is your second year testifying.

You heard my opening statement where I said the appropriate nice things about what you have been doing. We will be happy to hear your testimony.

Mr. Sisco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate those remarks. That is on target for what we have been trying to do in running the office for the time that I have been here.

With me today is Sharon Zelaska, Assistant Secretary, and Stuart Balderson, who is the Financial Clerk for the Senate. Unless we get into questions and details which stump me, I will be the only one speaking today. But Sharon and Stu represent more than 200 people who work in the Office of the Secretary, who are responsible for delivering day-to-day services to the full Senate. And we appreciate all the work that they have done.

My full statement has been filed with the committee, and it is almost identical to the one that we presented to the Rules Committee, modified by a little more emphasis, obviously, on the finances and the dollars, with a little more detail there. And the statement represents reality in terms of how we are trying to operate the office.

FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET REQUEST So what I would like to do this morning is just to present the budget request for fiscal year 1999. I want to discuss the funding of our two mandated systems, the legislative information system (LIS) and the financial management information system (FMIS), and where we stand there and what we have done with the money. I want to touch on issues of staffing key positions in the legislative departments and in the Disbursing Office, and then respond to any questions that you all might have.

I have proposed an operational budget of $15.205 million total for fiscal year 1999. And as you indicated, it reflects only a 2.9-percent increase over the fiscal year 1998 budget, which is totally attributable to our projected COLA. The $1.511 million for expenses is level funding from last year. We will continue to try to hold the line on that.

Through careful management we have consolidated some jobs; we have consolidated a couple of departments—and, I think, through just good, old-fashioned hard work on the part of the people who work in the Office of the Secretary, we have maintained the services and tried to improve them, without asking for any additional money or any additional positions up to this point.

However, looking down the road, with the work that we have got to do on these mandated systems, while continuing to do the dayto-day job, I am asking for up to 15 positions to be created, but no additional funding for those. We will attempt to—and I think that we can—absorb those into this funding request that is before you and that's the reason I have not asked for any extra money.

Additionally, we are not asking for any additional funding for the nonpersonnel costs related to the LIS or the FMIS for fiscal year 1999. We believe that we have on hand allocated funds for things that we need to do and to respond to things that we need to do to implement those two systems and to operate them.

STRATEGIC PLANNING Strategic planning is of great interest to the Senate. We are basically there, looking at trying to take advantage of new technologies. But also we are trying to keep improving methods of conducting Senate business. I told someone that this was a pretty good place before I arrived here, in terms of the way it works and the checks and balances. So if something is not broken, we are not going to try to fix it. But we are going to try to adapt new technology where it makes sense, and bring the Senate forward there.


And that leads me to systems. For the legislative information system, we have estimated the total cost through the year 2000 to be $8.909 million. Now, I have tried to arrive at a total cost for the system-not only in my budget, but in the Sergeant at Arms' budget and then the implementation of it-to where we could have a feel, before we ask for the authorization of a project, what the total cost to the Senate would be.

Of that, the estimated allocation of $4.104 million would be from my budget, for the project office and the systems design requirements. And $4.805 million was our estimate for what the Sergeant at Arms would spend for hardware, software procurement, and then to get the system implemented.

The committee has previously, as you know, provided $5 million in funding for this system, that was in the emergency supplemental appropriation for last year. As I said, we will not ask for any new money for that. The money that we have spent to date was derived from transfers and the reappropriation of money that was previously appropriated for the Senate. So this will not impact us. It will take about $8.9 million, $4.1 million from my budget and about $4.5 million from the Sergeant at Arms budget, to get the LIS implemented, the way we see things currently and looking down the road.

We have spent $1,052,917 for LIS in fiscal year 1997. This was done with the committee's approval from existing appropriations for our office. It reflected an effort to use available funds, to mini

mize any possibility that we would even have to request any more in the future.

The amount of $518,886 has been expended in the first quarter of fiscal year 1998. And that, of course, will come out of the $5 million.

When LIS is complete, it will provide an online electronic access to all the legislative information from one source and in one format. And it will serve as a repository of all of the information in the legislative process in the Senate.

We are on schedule with that project, I am pleased to say. It has the benefits of establishing data standards for exchange of information between the House and the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, and eventually, the National Archives, to facilitate the smooth flow and tracking of information from point A, at which something is introduced into the system, to point Z, when it is filed with the National Archives.

AMENDMENT TRACKING SYSTEM We are beginning to see some benefits from the work that we have done and the work the staff has done. We have an amendment tracking system that is available now to Members and staff.

In the past, when an amendment was introduced on the floor, it would be assigned a number, as you know, and then copies would be made of it. And it would then be hand carried, or picked up, from each of the offices for anyone who was interested in seeing what the amendment really said, and to be able to analyze the impact it would have on the bill and to make a judgment call in terms of what a Senator's position would be on it. And that would take some time.

Now, with the amendment tracking system, and with an optical scanner, when the amendment is assigned a number, up to approximately 12 pages can be scanned and, within 20 minutes, on every PC connected within the Senate, the amendment will be before the legislative assistant, for the Senator to see. That is available now.

AUTOMATED ROLLCALL VOTES Also, we have automated the rollcall votes. They are automated in the same format that they are printed in the Congressional Record. But instead of having to wait for the next day to see how a vote turns out or to analyze it or have it available for whatever purposes, it is available within 1 hour on the system, on the LIS, right now.


Another innovation this year is the complete committee and subcommittee schedule. We discussed that some last year. We were prepared to give a demonstration then, and we are prepared to give a demonstration now, but there is no hookup in this particular room to do it. So I invite the committee, anyone individually or collectively from the staff, that at any time you want to have a detailed demonstration of that, you go in, search by the Senator and

46-108 - 99-2

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »