Lapas attēli

Water Resources Association, the International Small Satellite Organization, Mercy International Health Services, InterHealth Incorporated, the Landon School, and the Harry A. Blackmun Scholarship Foundation. In the early 1990's, Mr. Ziglar served as a member of the Senior Advisory Group on Water Governance of the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. Recently, Mr. Ziglar served as Chairman of the United States Senate Delegation to the National Summit on Retirement Savings. In 1988, he was the joint recipient with U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallop of the Water Statesman of the Year Award from the National Water Resources Association.

Mr. Ziglar is a native of Pascagoula, Mississippi, and is a member of the bars of New York, Washington, D.C., Virginia and Arizona.

Senator BENNETT. The Sergeant at Arms budget request is $116 million, which is a 23-percent increase over fiscal year 1999 and includes a request for 15 additional FTE's, so we look forward to hearing your explanation for that and justification, and you may proceed.


Mr. ZIGLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here in my role as Sergeant at Arms. I did have the pleasure of coming here as chairman of the Capitol Police Board earlier this month, and we appreciate your support.

I wanted to also introduce, in addition to Loretta, three other people

who are in the audience, Doyle Frederick, the chief of staff, Chris Dey, our chief financial officer, and Chick Ciccolella, the chief of operations who on a day-to-day basis makes things work.

I have submitted my testimony for the record, but I would like to briefly expand and discuss some of the issues that you have just raised.

First, I would like to do one thing, and that is acknowledge and recognize the tremendous contribution that my predecessor, Greg Casey, made to modernizing the Sergeant at Arms organizational and financial structure. He did a terrific job and I think he deserves a lot of gratitude for that. I must say he certainly made my job a lot easier. We are down the path on many issues that I would have had to start had he not, and so I just wanted to put on the record my appreciation for what Greg did in this job.

Second, I want to note in the relatively brief period of time that I have had to observe the Sergeant at Arms organization, I am convinced it is a first-class professional organization, and I am quite proud to be part of that organization.

Now, that is not to suggest that everything is perfect and that we do not have challenges going forward into the future. We do, and I have tried to define for my own agenda as Sergeant at Arms what those challenges are and what I would like to address going forward, and it really breaks down into four different areas.

The first area is obviously Y2K, and that is not just because you happen to have a particular interest in it, but because I share your view that it would not look good if the United States Senate found itself crashed on January 1, 2000, when we have been preaching to the rest of the world about getting its act together, so it clearly is critically important, and the number 1 priority.

The second priority is, I believe we need to develop and execute a policy and a methodology for keeping the Senate as up-to-date on the cutting edge of technology, and this includes everything from the paging system to the E-mail system to the document management system. We simply need to keep pace with the changing technological environment.

The third challenge is to do a better job of delivering the services that we are supposed to deliver. I think the Sergeant at Arms Office does a great job of it now, but there is always room for improvement, whether it is the technology side, or whether it is delivering the mail. We need to continually work at improving the efficiency of the delivery of our services.

Finally are the matters we talked about earlier in my appearance as Capitol Police Board chairman, and those are to enhance the security of the Capitol, and to deal with important management issues in the Capitol Police Department.

In fact, tomorrow I will be going over to the House OversightI think it is called the House Administration Committee now, to testify on the Booz-Allen and Hamilton report that we just received. In fact, when I was here before I talked about our response to that report and how the input from Booz-Allen can help define the things we can do to make the Capitol Police Department a bet

a ter police department.

I think I speak for the entire Sergeant at Arms organization when I say we are committed to making this work, and meeting these challenges as rapidly and as efficiently as we possibly can.

I would like to if you are agreeable to this, I would like to go ahead and discuss the overall fiscal year 2000 budget request, and then come back to Y2K at the very end.

The budget request, as you pointed out, is $116 million, which is up $22 million from fiscal year 1999, and that is due in large part as a result of major capital items.


(Dollars in thousands)

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

I want to look at this budget, or I have tried to look at this budget somewhat differently, I guess, than it has been in the past, and put it into two components. Because of my business background I want to look at the O&M budget, or if you will, the operating budget, and then the capital budget to see how we are performing and where we are putting our money. Can we bring that chart a little closer?

Senator BENNETT. I have a copy.

Mr. ZIGLAR. What we have done is, we have gone back to 1997 and broken it into an operation and maintenance expenditures portion and then a capital and related expenditures portion. What you will see is that the capital expenditures portion up until, obviously, this request, has been going down rather dramatically.

At the same time, our operating budget has been going up, but it has been going up primarily due to COLA's and merit increases without a lot of other additional costs.

This year, in terms of the operating and maintenance budget, we are asking for a 4.6 percent increase, and let me tell you a little bit about what is in that; 3.4 percent of the 4.6 percent is attributable to COLA's and merit increases, and part of the additional 15 people, but not the entire part.

The other part of that 4.6–1.2 percent—is attributable to the commercial information services expansion and upgrade. It was a question in my mind as to where we wanted to put that, but we have treated the commercial information services project development as an operating expense in the past, so to remain consistent we put $1.1 million into the operating budget for the upgrade of the commercial information services.

Let me make one other point about the operating side of the budget, and that is historically we have not put things like PC's, smaller equipment into the capital budget. They have been in the operating budget. If we spent $10 million, let us say, on PC's in a year, that would show up in the operating budget. So there are capital items of short-term duration, rapidly depreciating items that are part of the operating budget, which would be somewhat differently treated if you were in a business environment. That would have something, I am sure, to do with the tax implications.

With respect to the capital component, as you will see, it had dropped off through 1999, but we are now proposing an increase of $17,675,000 in capital in order to make some big expenditures that we need to make on the technology side, and I will get into that in a few minutes.

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

Let me make one other point about the budget generally. We have another chart here that I would like to show you, because I think it tells a very good story about how the Sergeant at Arms Office has been functioning. I wish that I could sit here and take credit for it, but I cannot, because I have not been here long enough to take credit, so I will give credit particularly to my prede


As you will see, the spread between revenues or appropriations and expenditures has been rather wide in the past. However, in the last few years we have gotten to the point where our expenditures have been approximately 98 percent of the appropriation. So what that tells me, is that a couple of things have happened.

One, we are getting better at budgeting, and second we are also getting better at managing our revenues versus expenses at the operating level. And more importantly, what I have discovered is that productivity obviously has gone up in the Sergeant at Arms operations, because we are doing a lot more things with the same basic level of revenue as we have had in the past. Quite frankly, going into year 2000, fiscal year 2000, what I see are a number of projects at the operating level, service upgrades and things like that, that we are going to be able to do and still maintain basically that same revenue line.

So I am very pleased that we are doing so well in terms of running this operation. I think a lot of that credit goes to Chick, who has done a wonderful job since he came in as the operating head, and so I am encouraged about this organization and about its efficiency.

Going back to the capital component of the budget, as I mentioned, this $17 million increase intended to provide upgrades to the technology infrastructure in the Senate, and it is driven somewhat by the year 2000 issue.

This budget, the capital budget, helps and supports the information technology strategic plan that was put together in 1997 and was started, the implementation was started in 1998, so this is part of trying to address the strategic plan and live up to it.

Even though it is in my written text, let me run through for you the components of the additional $21 million that are over and above last year's request. $742 million can be attributable directly to Y2K. Now, $342 million of it, or $442, I guess, would be specifically addressed to the non-mission critical part of the Y2K effort, and I will show you where we are on that in a few minutes. That is money that will be spent in the latter part of the year to try to get all of our non-mission critical systems compliant.

There is another $3 million there that, quite frankly, is a contingency, and that contingency is dedicated to the mission-critical systems. Hopefully, we have planned it exactly right, and we know exactly how many dollars it is going to cost, but you never know when you are going to hit something that is going to cost you more money, and so we wanted to put a contingency in there.

Chick promises me we will never have to go into the contingency, but I am going to ask him to come up with half of it if we do, but we do have a contingency there just in case on the mission critical systems, and hopefully we will be giving you that money back after we go through this process

$372 million is used for upgrading the data communications systems, or the wide area network upgrade, and that is a project started in 1997. It is a 5-year project, and it has to do with communications between member offices, both at the State and Washington, and committees, and it is a very large project but one that is moving on quite nicely.

We then have $4.4 million for the recording studio, and that is broken into two components. $2.3 million of it is being used on the first phase of creating digital technology in the recording studio. Now, we need to do that for several reasons.

Number 1, the FCC has dictated that by the year 2005 or 2006 all broadcast will be in digital format, and so if we are going to continue to broadcast over C-SPAN the proceedings of the Senate and the committees, we are going to need to be in digital format, so we are going to need to start that migration.

Maybe even more importantly what we have here is an opportunity also to be more efficient in the way that we archive the proceedings of the Senate. We can actually send this in digital format over to the Library of Congress, and to the Archives, and they can record it on their disks, and we never have to make the tapes and send them over there and store them.

And the third implication for digital technology is that, for example, if you have a committee hearing and you want to, in real time, broadcast a piece of that, or use a piece of that, a staffer at a desk could pull that off, edit it, and have it rebroadcast in real time. It is an amazing technology, and it is something we are really being

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »