operation required to maintain the equipment and would lead to the undesirable situation of excess overtime for the remaining employees. CAPITOL BUILDINGS X-RAY INSPECTION SYSTEM

Question: You are requesting $792,000 for the acquisition and installation of nine x-ray inspection units at new locations around the Capitol.

How many incidents have occurred in the last 12 months that could have been prevented if this equipment were in place?

Answer: The number of incidents that have occurred in the last 12 months that could have been prevented if this equipment were in place is indeterminate since it is not possible to predict what might have happened if this equipment had been available. Its primary purpose is

to examine closed packages, etc., before permitting their entry into the building. Hand inspection is presently being done, and when that is not possible, individuals are sent to an entrance where an existing x-ray unit can be utilized.

Question: Will you be acquiring these units under a competitive procurement or will you go the contract amendment route?

are

Answer: The more recent state-of-the-art x-ray units available on the Federal Supply schedule through the General Services Administration at approximately one-half the price previously paid. Therefore, this request can be reduced to $400,000 for this purpose. OFFICE INTRUSION ALARMS

Question: You are requesting $340,000 in fiscal year 1983 for the installation of office intrusion alarms and a video display system. These installations are meant to improve building security.

Has there been any criminal activity over the past year that these systems would have prevented?

Answer: Whereas the x-ray inspection equipment is visible to the public and may act as a deterrent in certain instances, the office intrusion alarm system is intended to aid the U.S. Capitol Police in apprehending an unauthorized intruder without the necessity of a policeman being physically stationed in each office or space being protected. The video display system will greatly aid the central security police that monitor the system in determining the location and type of the alarm and in dispatching a police patrol to the proper location with minimum loss of time.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Question: You plan to spend $325,000 in fiscal year 1983 on your Energy Conservation program.

When will the Energy Conservation program be completely in place? Answer: The Energy Conservation program will probably require another two to three years to have all of the instruments and equipment installed and operating as desired.

RENOVATIONS TO VACATED AREAS

Question: You are requesting $862,000 to renovate areas in the Capitol Building that will be left vacant when the Disbursing Office and Document Room are moved to the Hart Building. Can you give us some general idea of how you arrived at this cost estimate?

Answer: The $862,000 estimate to renovate vacated space in the Capitol is a conceptual estimate. A preliminary survey of existing facilities was made, along with calculating the square feet of space available. A cost per square foot, derived by past experience, was applied to the total area involved. Additional factors for contingency, construction management and inflation were then applied to calculate a total estimate.

Question: How will these vacated areas be used in the future? Answer: These vacated areas will be converted from storage and support space to general office use, as directed by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC DRAWINGS

Question: Last year you indicated that you expect your program for the Preservation of Historic Drawings to be completed in fiscal year 1983. That program was expected to take two years and cost $72,000. If we appropriate the $50,000 you are requesting in fiscal year 1983 it will have taken seven years. What has been the total cost of the program to date?

Answer: The original appropriation request in fiscal years 197778 of $72,000 for the preservation of historic drawings was based upon an estimate by the Preservation Office of the Library of Congress, prior to any actual experience upon which to base predictions of required man-hours. In August 1978, having completed the first 245 drawings under the fiscal year 1977 appropriation of $35,000 and the fiscal year 1978 appropriation of $37,000, the Librarian provided a revised estimate for the entire project of $337,000, and subsequent appropriation requests have been based upon that figure. Appropriations and expenditures through fiscal year 1982 are as follows:

Question: Will fiscal year 1983 be the last year of the program? Answer: It is presently estimated that the project can still be completed within the Librarian's 1978 estimate, in spite of increased personnel costs. The remaining $100,000 of that estimate, will be requested in allotments of $50,000 in fiscal years 1983 and 1984, respectively, by which time the program will be completed.

*Projected

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

STATEMENT OF DR. ALICE M. RIVLIN, DIRECTOR

ACCOMPANIED BY:

RAYMOND C. SCHEPPACH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR

ALFRED B. FITT, GENERAL COUNSEL

STANLEY L. GREIGG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

JAMES L. BLUM, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUDGET ANALYSIS DIVISION ROBERT D. HARRIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUDGET ANALY SIS DIVISION

CHARLES S. BARDEN, JR., BUDGET ANALYST

INTRODUCTION OF ASSOCIATES

Senator MATTINGLY. We will recess for approximately 10 minutes until the Congressional Budget Office gets here.

[A brief recess was taken.]

Senator MATTINGLY. We are happy to have from the Congressional Budget Office Dr. Alice M. Rivlin, the Director. We would like you to go ahead with your statement. Welcome aboard. It seems like you and I run into each other regularly.

Dr. RIVLIN. Right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be here. Let me very briefly introduce the gentlemen at the end of the table: Raymond Scheppach who is my Deputy Director: Bob Harris, who handles our computer operations; Stanley Greigg, who heads our Office of Intergovernmental Relations; Jim Blum, who runs our Budget Analysis Divisions; and Alfred Fitt, our General Counsel.

BUDGET REQUEST AND PERSONNEL

I know you want to move ahead quickly. I thought I might just read the very beginning of the statement to refresh your memory on the numbers and then the section on our computer costs, because that is one of the main things that is going up now. Then I will leave the rest of the statement for the record.

For fiscal year 1983, the Congressional Budget Office is requesting $16,352,000. This appropriation level would allow us to fund our currently authorized staff level of 218 positions, which we are not now fully funding, to continue our present services to the Congress in support of the budget process, and to carry out a newly legislated responsibility to estimate the costs that State and local governments would incur as a result of Federal legislation.

1982 APPROPRIATIONS

You will recall that our fiscal year 1982 spending request was $14,298,000. A lower funding level was agreed to in conference, however, and we are currently operating at a fiscal year 1982 appropriation level of $12,868,000.

This does not provide the necessary funds for the October 1981 costof-living increase nor the January 1982 pay cap increase. The combined costs associated with these activities is $408,000, bringing our fiscal year 1982 requirements to $13,276,000. The approved increases in our funding levels for both fiscal year 1981 and fiscal year 1982 have averaged less than 3 percent annually.

WORKLOAD

I should add that these small increases have come at a period of extraordinary increase in the demand for Congressional Budget Office assistance. The intense budget activity over the last year, which is continuing heavily into this year, has increased enormously the workload of the Congressional Budget Office and put great strain on our staff. Our economic forecasts have been central to the budget debate and we have been inundated with requests for additional fiscal analysis. Both budget committees have greatly increased their demands for budget projections and estimates while other committees have turned to us far more than ever before for estimates of fiscal savings and program impacts of legislative changes. Our staff is dedicated to the success of the budget process and has worked very hard, often putting in extremely long hours late into the night and on the weekends. We have made occasional mistakes, but by and large I have been extraordinarily proud of how well the staff has performed under pressure and of the quality of the product we have produced.

1983 REQUIREMENTS

Our 1983 estimate reflects our needs in four key areas: The ability to perform our existing services at the currently authorized staff level of 218 positions; to bolster our data processing capabilities, especially those of our fiscal, tax, and budget analysis divisions; to support the systems, data, and model development work fundamental to our ability to analyze the complex issues before the Congress; and to comply with the requirements of the State and Local Government Cost Estimate Act of 1981, Public Law 97-108. Each of these is discussed at more length in the statement.

PERSONNEL

Basically, Mr. Chairman, this request, which is for about $3 million in additional money, divides into two parts. First, it is for additional people for two reasons. One of these is to bring us up to our currently authorized level. We have not been running at the authorized level recently because, with the cut of last year, we simply couldn't afford to fill all positions. And the other is more people to perform the new re

sponsibility for State and local estimates. So essentially about half of the increase is for additional salary and related expenses.

COMPUTER SUPPORT SERVICES

The other half reflects the enormous increase in the demand for our computer operations, reflecting the intensity of the budget process, current and prospective, as well as the computer operations that will be involved in carrying out the new State and local responsibility.

ADP CONTRACTS

Computer support services are essential to the Congressional Budget Office's budget estimating and analytical capability. With the budget dominating the agendas of both the Congress and the administration, the whole Congress, not just the Budget Committees, has become increasingly dependent on the accuracy and timeliness of the Congressional Budget Office budget numbers.

Our request for an increase of $1,577,000 for computer services in fiscal year 1983 is due to three factors: (1) increased charges, (2) increased computer utilization, and (3) required maintenance for existing systems. Anticipated price increases account for $269,000 of the $1,577,000. Under a 3-year contract with our largest commercial supplier, we have enjoyed price protection since March 1980. In 1983 this contract must be renewed, and consequently we must expect that our commercial costs will increase—we are estimating a 12-percent increase. To minimize such price increases, we have continued to follow our policy of using existing Government facilities when they can provide the services we need at less cost. We have a commitment from our largest Government supplier that their price increases will not exceed 2 percent. Accordingly, we estimate that price increases in our 1983 automated data processing budget will average out to 5.3 percent.

INCREASED COMPUTER UTILIZATION

Increased computer utilization in fiscal year 1983 is estimated to require an additional $1,124,000, amounting to 21 percent of our total computer costs. These resources are needed to support defense costing and scoring, analysis of the impact of tax changes, development of more frequent and more detailed economic assumptions, analysis of human service program revisions, improved services to the appropriations committees, and development of State and local government cost estimates. Those are detailed on page 142.

SYSTEMS REVISIONS AND MAINTENANCE

The final factor for automated data processing resources is the need for systems revisions and maintenance. In 1982 we have had to limit our maintenance activities very strictly. We believe that the $184,000 requested to improve systems will enable us to be more responsive to the increasing number of new requests from congressional committees.