It had reached a point that it was more economically feasible to hire additional personnel than to attempt to continue covering assignments by paying overtime. The utilization of police manpower was reviewed and in the period from January thru March of 1981 30 manyears of post assignments were eliminated with another 17 manyears of post assignments eliminated prior to October 1981. In fiscal year 1982 the Senate authorized an additional 20 positions on the police roll allowing the police to cover the 20 remaining manyears of assignments. In fiscal year 1983, 68 additional police positions would be needed to provide security for the Hart Senate Office Building. However, by continually reviewing police manpower utilization we believe that 21 manyears of post assignments can be cut prior to October 1982. Therefore, the request for additional police personnel to cover the Hart Building has been reduced to 47. By reviewing the manpower utilization of the police a total reduction of 68 manyears of duty assignments has been effected; the reduction of 47 for fiscal year 1982 and 21 for fiscal year 1983. The manyears saved by the total reduction of 68 positions has already been reassigned or reduced from the fiscal year 1983 request. Question: You also indicate in your statement before the Rules Committee that police coverage requirements will be curtailed as the annex buildings are vacated and razed and that the size of the force can be reduced at that point by 51 positions. When will the buildings be vacated? Answer: The exact time table for the relocation of employees housed in the Annex Buildings is not known; however, we anticipate a gradual transition over an extended period of perhaps a year or more. Question: Why can't you arrange to get through this period through the use of overtime and so forth? Otherwise you will have to hire and then fire in a relatively short time span. Answer: The use of overtime to meet manpower needs is a possible option. However, we have learned from experience that it is not a very practical approach. For a number of years we tried to handle permanent committees without requesting the adequate number of officers to properly provide the coverage, relying heavily on the use of overtime to make up the difference. Over a period of time it became readily apparent that this was neither prudent nor cost effective. As overtime hours increased and the lack of days off began to negatively effect personnel, a similar increase was noted in the use of sick leave and in the amounts of regular leave being accumulated by members of the force. The increased use of sick leave necessitated working even greater numbers of officers to offset growing absenteeism. This spiral effect, of course, resulted in a similar rise in personnel costs. The additional officers authorized in the FY 82 budget completed training and were assigned to the various line units in January of this year. Also, we were able to eliminate a number of previously required posts. These two factors have essentially halted the overtime spiral and we are just beginning to see some signs of a reversal in this trend. I would be extremely reluctant to recommend that we go back to these old methods, especially since actual salary costs would be 11⁄2 times greater at overtime rates than they would be at regular rates. It is our best estimate that the annex buildings will be demolished one by one as staffs are relocated to other facilities. It is our intention to eliminate, through attrition, the requisite number of officers as each building is razed. Judging from past ex perience, the building transition will be a gradual process, over an extended period. Crisis Management Studies Question: Mr. Liebengood, last year you told this Committee that you were requesting assistance from the FBI, the Secret Service and Mr. Robert Kupperman in determining the level of employment the Capitol Police needs to insure our security. How much did these studies cost and did they recommend any staffing increases? Answer: These studies have been prepared at no cost to the Senate. They did not identify any specific staffing increases. Service Department Question: You are requesting an increase in salaries for the Service Department of $1,070,000 for 42 additional positions. This works out to be about $25,500 per position. Frankly this seems a little high for new personnel. How does it compare with your current average salary? Answer: Service Department increase of $1,070,000 in personnel expense is due to the following: $115,000 to fund the requested Shift Differential Pay; $8,000 required due to elimination of the merit pay system by the Secretary of the Senate; $247,000 for annualization of merit increases given in FY 82 and future merit increases for FY 83; and $700,000 for 42 new positions to bring the second shift to full staffing and initiate a limited third shift in folding and addressing operations. This would average $16,667 per employee compared with the current average salary in the Service Department, excluding longevities, of $20,658. Computer Center Increases Question: You are requesting an additional $907,000 for the Computer Center for 28 new positions. This works out to about $31,300 per position. Again this seems rather costly. How does this compare to the current average and median salaries? Answer: In response to your question, Senator, we would like to point out that the $907,000 is our total additional salaries request which includes $303,000 for basic salary administration; $45,000 for night differential, and $9,000 to absorb the merit compensation program. The remaining $550,000, for 22 new positions, is subdivided as follows: $190,000 for 10 cable installation personnel and $360,000 for 12 positions. Of these 12 additional positions, 6 are professional development staff members (current average-$34,900 annually), 4 are Network technical personnel (current average-$26,600 annually), and 2 are Operations personnel (current average-$23,400 annually). The Computer Center's average salary as a whole is $28,400 per annum. Question: You are requesting an increase in your Computer Center budget, including expenses for terminals and the Correspondence Management System, of 46 percent. Has there ever been an increase of this magnitude in the history of the program? Answer: Most definitely, Senator. From 1974, when the Computer Center expense budget was approximately $2,000,000, to the $11.5 million request for ongoing expenses in FY 83, there have been wide fluctuations in the requested level of funding. In FY 79, the request for $10,514,000 ($10,268,000 appropriated) was 43.5% greater than the FY 78 appropriation. In FY 80, combining ongoing and policy issues, the budget request of $17,137,000 was 67% above the FY 79 appropriation. In comparing our FY 80 ongoing expense budget (there was no appropriation bill) of $8.8 million to our FY 81 request of $11.4 million, there was a 29% increase. The FY 82 budget represented a sharp reduction in funding below the FY 81 level. This cut did not provide sufficient funds for all programs, and, as a result, this barebones budget had to be increased through the use of carryover and contingency funding. It would be more appropriate to compare our FY 83 expense budget request of $13.4 million, including $2 million for policy issues, with the $11.4 million FY 81 budget, which shows an increase of under 18% between the two years. Question: What would you cut back on if we only gave you half of the Computer Center increase you have requested? What projected activities would you curtail? Answer: The Office of the Sergeant at Arms is responsible for the delivery and administration of authorized computer services to Senate users. The increases for ongoing operations will merely provide funding to continue these services which have been authorized by the Committee on Rules and Administration and funded by your Committee in past years. To freeze the growth of authorized services to existing levels, to deny the use of authorized services and facilities to new users, and to curtail or take back services currently used in Senate offices would require policy guidance from the Committee on Rules and Administration. We can identify certain services for which funding levels would have to be reduced, but would need guidance from you and the Rules Committee as to which items have a higher priority than others. Examples of services which could be curtailed, and the users which would be affected, are as follows: a. State Office Data Communications All member offices are author ized up to two sites with this capability. By the end of FY 82, there will be 119 sites installed. Expansion is predicted to occur based on current users moving to their authorized number of sites, as well as a heavy demand from new Members elected to the 98th Congress. b. Correspondence Management System All member offices and Committees are authorized to access this service. The higher levels of funding requested are based on the projected increased number of concurrent users signed on to the timesharing service. Without this increase, users would soon begin to experience an inability to use the system. C. ALTO This system is used by the Appropriations Committee and the Senate leadership. The funding for this system could be reduced if the priority for this service was determined lower than other authorized services. d. Terminals All authorized online services require computer terminals to communicate with the central processors. Funding to expand the terminal population could be denied, however, it would be neces sary to reject all requests for additional terminals, even though they may be within the currently authorized allocation levels. e. Processing Mail Returns Rental of an Optical Character Reader enhances the mailing system. This is available to all Senators, for eliminating returns from their mail files. This service routinely saves several times its operating cost through reductions in mailing costs. The above list represents some of the authorized services which could be eliminated or curtailed. In addition, all policy items would be eliminated, including increased capacity, ATMS in Member offices, equipment upgrade and enhancements, pilot tests, and additional Financial Management System packages. ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. WHITE ACCOMPANIED BY: WILLIAM L. ENSIGN, ASSISTANT ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL J. RAYMOND CARROLL, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING EMANUELE CRUPI, BUDGET OFFICER J. LEWEY CARAWAY, SUPERINTENDENT, SENATE OFFICE BUILDINGS HENRY C. KILBY, JR., ASSISTANT BUDGET OFFICER PREPARED STATEMENT Senator MATTINGLY. Mr. White. We will now hear the request from the Architect of the Capitol, Mr. George White. Mr. WHITE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Senator MATTINGLY. Good morning. Please go ahead and proceed with your statement. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a relatively brief statement of the various items that are offered in greater detail in our basic justifications. I can, with your approval, present a summary of that. Senator MATTINGLY. If you would like, or you can just submit it for the record. Mr. WHITE. I would like to submit it for the record. [The statement follows:] (91) STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. WHITE In presenting our appropriations request for fiscal year 1983, I thought it would be desirable, with your approval, to proceed in the same manner as last year, that is, to present a brief summary of the various requests, following which I would be pleased to respond in detail to questions regarding any of the specific items that you wish to pursue. The justifications have been prepared, Mr. Chairman, to include all items pertaining to the "Architect of the Capitol", including the Botanic Garden, House items, Senate items, and joint items. The total appropriation request for fiscal year 1983 is $99,497,000, which includes funding for 2,068 positions. This represents a net decrease of $3,030,000 and an increase of 95 positions over the fiscal year 1982 totals of $102,527,000 and 1,973 positions. Stated differently, gross increases requested are $25,764,700, and 102 positions which have been reduced by nonrecurring fiscal year 1982 program deductions amounting to $28,794,700 and the abolition of 7 positions. If the item "House Office Buildings" is excluded, the $25,764,700 increase for 1983 reduces to $23,182,300, of which $12,680,000 is for Senate Office Buildings and Senate Garage, and the 102 additional positions reduce to 101, of which 80 are for Senate Office Buildings. The $25,764,700 increases fall into five categories, namely, New Positions, which total $1,364,600, or 5% of the increase; |