Without going into all of the details of it, if you will look at that and I think you have it in front of you, Senator-we are doing quite well on the non-mission-critical systems.

In fact, while I guess there is no guarantee of this, I am pretty confident that come January 1, 2000, that even our non-missioncritical systems are all going to be Y2K-compliant. Obviously, our emphasis is on mission-critical, but we are doing a lot of work and we are getting there very quickly on the non-mission-critical systems.

With respect to the mission-critical systems, of the 22 there are 8 now that are either fully tested, validated, ready to go, or very near that. Of the remaining 14, you have the chart in front of you, and as you can see, we are doing quite well. We have our deadlines and I think it is realistic that we will meet them and be there well before January 1.

I wanted to mention a couple of the systems that are there because they are of special interest. I will not talk much about legislative information and financial management, because you have just spent a lot of time with Gary on those.

We are very comfortable with the legislative information system status at the moment. We manage it jointly with the Secretary, as you know, and our side of this is the technological side of it. The amendment tracking system is up and running, the committee scheduling system is up and running, and the document management system is getting near to being up and running.

Now, we are in the functional testing stage of the amendment tracking, and the committee scheduling system, and we will, when we hit the functional testing point on the document management system, then start moving into the end-to-end testing for Y2K of those systems. We are very comfortable that we are coming along very nicely on that.

The financial management information system has already been implemented and, as you know, is in the testing phase now.

The mainframe which is in front of you there, actually we are further along on the mainframe than the chart represents, because what happened was the delivery of the new computer was much quicker than we thought. It is actually here, it is actually installed, and we are actually in the functional testing phase, and we will be moving to the Y2K testing phase very shortly. I am very pleased about that, because that has lots of cascading effects on other things we do around here, so we are quite comfortable with where we are on the mainframe.

Another thing I wanted to mention is the Capitol Police radio. I talked to you about that when I was here before as to whether or not we were going to try to do a Y2K fix on that console or whether we would go for a new one. After a lot of analysis, both financial and operational, we have decided that the appropriate response here is to go for a new radio console for a number of reasons: it was going to be a reasonably expensive fix; this console is way outmoded, not being produced any more, and has a limited time left on when we can get support for it; and maybe more important, it has no redundancy in the system, so if it goes down, it is down. There are lots of new modular type radio console systems that are out there now, and so we are in the process of putting together

a bid package to find out which one we want to buy and which is the most efficient to use.

The Senate paging system is something that I put down here. Maybe in the big scheme of things it may not be all that interesting to anybody, but I find it interesting that we have a paging system around here that does not work beyond 30 miles from here, and considering the fact that you can take a pager and go anywhere in the world now and receive a message, it seems to me that we are way behind the technological curve there.

We are in a bit of a dilemma. We have to make sure that we are Y2K-compliant on the current system, but we want to move to a new system, and so we are trying to fix the Y2K problem because we cannot get completely to a new system by January 1, 2000, but in doing that we are strategizing our movement to a new pager system, and I think that is really important. I mean, it is great to be able to get a page in the Capitol Building, but if you cannot get a page in Utah or Mississippi, what good is it, and so we are really going to

Senator BENNETT. I like it. [Laughter.]

If I get more than 30 miles away from here, they leave me alone. [Laughter.]

Mr. ZIGLAR. Well, in that case, Senator, we are not going to give you a pager. [Laughter.]

Let me conclude about Y2K by saying it is probably unrealistic to expect all of our systems to work, particularly the non-missioncritical systems, but I have to tell you that I do expect them to work come January 1, 2000, and I think we are going to get there. Hopefully, my optimism will be rewarded, but I do think we will get there. We obviously are focusing on mission-critical systems. We have to, and they will be there, and we are confident we are going to be able to conduct business on January 1, 2000.

I would like to end my comments by making the point that the fiscal year 2000 budget request in my view is an investment in the future. The Senate is going to be well-served by improving its systems and managing the new technologies of the 21st Century, rather than being a victim of those technologies, or being at their mercy.

PREPARED STATEMENT

At the Sergeant at Arms Office it is our goal to provide the best service and the best technology available for the system while protecting the hard-earned dollars of our taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity, and I am anxious to answer your questions.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES W. ZIGLAR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to present the fiscal year 2000 funding request for the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper. I am accompanied by: Loretta Symms, Deputy Sergeant at Arms; Doyle G. Frederick, Chief of Staff; Charles "Chick" Ciccolella, Chief of Operations; and Christopher C. Dey, Chief Financial Officer.

Before I begin my testimony today, I want to publicly thank my predecessor, Greg Casey, for a job well-done. During his two-year tenure, Greg engineered and executed a successful overhaul of the administrative and operating structure of the Ser

geant at Arms organization. It was an overhaul that was much-needed and the Senate, in my opinion, owes him a debt of gratitude. He certainly made my job easier. Since assuming the duties of Sergeant at Arms in November 1998, I have been on a steep learning curve. The impeachment trial provided me with an opportunity to witness how the Sergeant at Arms organization functions under the most trying of circumstances. What I learned from this experience is that the Senate is blessed to have so many experienced, loyal, competent and professional employees. The Sergeant at Arms operation is a first-class professional organization.

Although there are many significant challenges facing us in such areas as delivery of services, technology upgrades, the potential Y2K problem, enhancing Capitol Complex security and strengthening the management structure of the Police Department, much progress has been made in addressing those challenges.

My predecessor testified before this Committee on March 12, 1998 with respect to the fiscal year 1999 budget and the initiatives he was then undertaking. Much has occurred since that testimony. Among others: there are eight new members of the Senate; we experienced the tragic loss of two Police officers; we have replaced or made Y2K compliant over 3,000 personal computers; we have upgraded nine major systems (Amendment Tracking System, Committee Scheduling System, Republican Vote Tally System, Senate Payroll System, Telecommunication Switches, Local Telephone Service, Frame Relay Data Network System, Senate Fiber Network, and the Senate's Secure Telephones) to enable Y2K compliancy (some are still being tested and validated); we have brought online the new FMIS system; we have substantially completed the reorganization initiated by Mr. Casey; and, of course, we provided support for the historic impeachment trial.

As we go forward, we are focused on the major technology concerns of the Senate: the Y2K problem, about which much more will be provided shortly; e-mail capability; member office mail systems; and continuing development of the Legislative Information System, including the Document Management component of LIS, and the Financial Management Information System. Also, as you know, we have begun a program to replace and make entirely Y2K compliant all the personal computers of members of the class of 2001, leadership offices and committees. We will provide regular reports to the Committee on the progress of that program and related funding requirements.

On a matter that I know to be of interest to members and staff of the Committee, I am pleased to report that the legislation implementing the new hair care revolving fund and the requirement that we move to significantly reduce operating losses has experienced some success. In 1997, the operating loss was $350,000; in 1998, the loss was $275,000; and in 1999, we project the loss to be in the $150,000 to $200,000 range. We have put in place significant price increases and have adopted a commission-based compensation plan and reduced staffing levels. However, we face additional challenges with respect to this issue because of the difficulty in reducing the loss further without significantly reducing the level of compensation and benefits of the employees of the facility. As you know, we worked with the Rules Committee to develop a plan that would allow the employees to remain eligible for their federal benefits and to retain as much of their compensation as possible. While that has been achieved, profitability has not. Additionally, we recognize that there remain continuing concerns about the appropriate level of salary compensation of the staff in the Hair Care facility. We will continue to work with this Committee and with the Rules Committee to resolve this matter.

Our commitment to satisfy the many service needs of the Senate is based upon the premise of constant and effective communication with those who rely on us for a panoply of services. As you know, we established the Office of Customer Relations last year to ensure that our Senate customers participate with us as partners in satisfying their technology and other service requirements. The Office of Customer Relations now is fully staffed and functioning and has been one of the real success stories of the reorganization implemented by my predecessor.

As mentioned above, the reorganization of our operations largely has been completed. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the new organizational structure and changes will be made as necessary to better deliver services to our Senate customers. I want to assure you that we remain committed to the goal of providing the highest quality of service to the Senate consistent with protecting the hard-earned dollars of the American taxpayer.

FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to devote a substantial portion of my testimony to Y2K and related technology issues and initiatives. However, I would first like to provide you with an explanation of our funding request and conclude my testimony

with an extended discussion, as outlined above. This request addresses important near term issues and funds needed for future technology investments.

Our Budget Request for fiscal year 2000 is $116 million, which is an increase of approximately $22 million from the current fiscal year. To put this budget request in some perspective, it is helpful to analyze it in two parts. The first part would be categorized as the SAA baseline operating budget, i.e., how does this budget compare with prior year budgets after excluding major capital items or one-time projects or expenditures? The second part would encompass those items that reflect non-recurring major capital and related expenditures.

It should be noted that in three of the four preceding years, our appropriation has been less than in the preceding year. In fact, since 1991, our budget has remained flat or has decreased in all but one year. The last appropriation of this size was in 1992 when the budget was $120 million.

In the most recent two fiscal years, our obligations and expenditures exceeded 98 percent of our appropriation. We are consuming nearly all of our annual funding and are maintaining a larger and more complex array of services, interconnecting systems and technologies. What this indicates to me is that we are doing a better job of budgeting and that we are increasing productivity-we are doing more with the same level of resources. To illustrate my point, although our aggregate operating and maintenance budget request has been increased by 4.6 percent or $4 million over fiscal year 1999, that increase is reflected primarily in adjustments for COLA's and merit increases. Yet, if you examine the increased work load of fiscal year 1999 over fiscal year 1998 and you factor in our expectations that the workload will increase yet again as much in fiscal year 2000, the productivity gains are substantial. To give you an example of increased workloads, we have documented the following: through use of robotic cameras in committee hearing rooms, we have covered 12 percent more hearings; we also processed 30 percent more mail with fewer staff; introduced video streaming services over the wide area network to state offices; and expanded our commercial information service program.

The second part of our fiscal year 2000 Budget Request could be characterized as the capital budget component. The current level of funding for the Sergeant at Arms operation does not provide for the significant capital investments required for the future. We are requesting an increase of $18 million for capital investments, to take a necessary and substantial step toward building the kind of technology infrastructure necessary to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This requested increase is driven by the expected costs of completing our Y2K compliance project and by the need to fund improved and expanded technologies in support of member offices and committees.

To successfully meet future needs, we must think in terms of multi-year time horizons from concept to full-scale implementation. This budget request recognizes both the increased demand for technological solutions to Senate office work problems and the requirement to plan in advance for the integration of new technology. We must begin the funding and development process now in order to insure that Senate needs in 2001, 2002 and beyond are met.

This budget request fully supports the elements of the Information Technology Strategic Plan. The objectives of the plan are: Provide integrated information systems; provide our customers with responsive information technology and customer support; provide an information technology environment that protects sensitive information and supports data integrity; leverage emerging technologies; and use best information technology management practices.

In summary form, the requested increase consists of the following:

In millions

Funding for Y2K solutions for non-mission critical systems as well as a contingency to handle any problems that might occur with the mission-critical systems

$7.5

Funding for upgraded data communications capability for member state offices (WAN upgrade)

3.5

Funding for digital technology for the Senate Recording Studio

2.3

Funding for installation of robotic cameras in committee rooms and associated control rooms

2.1

Funding for continued support of the recently upgraded commercial information and newswire services

1.1

Funding for a new e-mail system and related products

1.0

Funding for annual COLA and merit increases

2.4

Other (training, human resources and contract management)

1.9

TOTAL

21.8