needed to be revisited and validated, which is why I talk about a worst case schedule.

We have had some people talk to us about: Is it in the right place? Maybe we should do it on the west front? Maybe it should be at Postal Square. Maybe it should not be here at all. If that kind of direction is given to us during this first phase, I do not know how long the process will take.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me just quickly ask you: Architecturally, do you think the siting is correct?

Mr. HANTMAN. Absolutely, I think it is in the right place.

VISITORS CENTER SECURITY

Senator FEINSTEIN. And you do not believe it presents a threat to the Capitol? Some of those questions have been raised.

Mr. HANTMAN. Relative to-we have so many doors coming in the Capitol right now. With the Capitol Police sitting here earlier today, we could have talked about the fact that visitors can come through so many entrances right now, it is a problem for the members of the police force to know who is a Senator, who is a Congressperson in the first place. But when you get 95 percent of your visitors who are unknown coming through multiple doors, the idea of how do you protect at any level of standoff from the entrances or recognize that this person is unknown to you, this is a staff door, you should not be coming here.

The concept of the visitors center is that 95 percent of the people who come to the Capitol will be coming through the visitors center, which is a standoff distance of 300 feet from the Capitol itself. That is where the magnetometers will be. That is where our restudy really does have to focus to heighten our ability to do quick and respectful clearance and prepping of people before they get into the visitors center, which would give them free access to the Capitol basically beyond there.

So from a police perspective it makes eminently good sense to do it and to give us a nice way for all of our visitors to come in to see the Capitol to be oriented to what they are going to see when they get in, what the rotunda is all about, what the history of our legislative government is all about.

I talked before about there really being two projects here. One of them is the physical facility itself. The other is what goes into it, which is why I have suggested at past hearings that what we probably want to do and I am not sure how leadership would feel about it is in parallel with the construction documents and the planning of the physical facility, which if the existing 1995 plan is found to be acceptable by the many committees that we are going before, we will go back and we will talk about why the west front is not the appropriate place to do it.

But I plan to do that expeditiously, because I think we are in the right location. I think the security issues are being addressed very clearly. I think it meets a lot of the needs, including circulation from one side of the Capitol to the other that this helps expedite, as well as garbage removal, which is done in the open right now. All of these issues are addressed, I think, very well in this plan. But there are many open issues and the letter that I will give you indicates what some of those open issues are and what we plan

to do during this study phase, this planning phase which is mandated by the legislation.

Subsequent to the planning phase, once we get approval to move ahead, then we would get into, according to the legislation, again an engineering phase, a design phase, a construction phase. Quite frankly, engineering and design architecture are one phase and I am recommending that we eliminate a separate milestone which really does not make a whole lot of sense.

The question of how this is all reviewed at each step of the way is important. If we are validating the existing design and making changes as necessary for security and what other issues that leadership may determine needs to be incorporated or modified, the schedule will be a lot shorter than if we start from ground zero on the west front, which will not work, or another location yet that some folks can bring up.

So it is a question of how loose the dart-throwing gets, and I would like to have a very tight schedule so that we can move ahead with something that is very security-related.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. I was very favorably impressed in Rules when we had that presentation. I forget when it was, but it was last year some time. I thought that it is really a good start. Of course, a lot was really, I think, learned in the killing that took place in the Capitol, because the people at the magnetometers had no chance. There was no ability to spot him coming in, no ability to see him draw his weapon.

Mr. HANTMAN. Exactly.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So those sight lines that you mentioned are so important.

VISITOR ENTRANCES

Mr. HANTMAN. They are. In fact, Senator Warner had brought that up with us while he still had his tenure as chair of that committee. One of the things we are looking at is, he had suggested investigating how, for the Senate office buildings as a start, we could take the magnetometers and move them outside the physical structure, because if something blows up inside the building what kind of structural damage would be done.

One of the things we are looking at doing is, he had tasked us with on the Russell Building doing a vestibule adjacent to the main stairs. We are looking for additional dollars on that to reprogram the funds so that we can design that as the prototype or at least the model of what we might be able to do at Dirksen and Hart to also move some of these facilities outside the building. It is more difficult there.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Particularly this building, if you notice you can come in and you are right there. If anybody is packing anything, the people at the magnetometers have no chance.

Mr. HANTMAN. Part of that problem is going to come down to an administrative decision by leadership: Are we going to direct all members-not all members, but all visitors, to a single door where they can be screened, and still have member doors, staff doors, so that our business is not interrupted? If you are willing to take that step, this makes sense. If you are not willing to take that step and

visitors can come into any door anyway, are we doing the right thing? Does it really impact us?

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

Senator BENNETT. There was one solution which I hope does not go forward, that we simply declare Capitol Hill a national park and

move.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think you are safe on that.

Senator BENNETT. Take the Senate and the House and build a secure place for them entirely off Capitol Hill, and then just say, we turn this over to the visitors entirely.

PARKING GARAGES

Mr. HANTMAN. One other point that I did not discuss was the issue of parking garages. We had talked before about the legislative garage, the Russell Garage, and the pending improvement of it, whether or not that garage should be expanded, things of that

nature.

In presenting our information again to Senator Warner at Rules Committee, I think there was agreement that what we should look at and what we are requesting is the ability to reprogram funds from that legislative garage to take a look at the first increments of a possible garage on what is called Site 724, Block 724, which is just to the east of the police building.

A 500-car garage could be created on the eastern end of that block as a first element, and if the Senate needed the spaces or we decided that we do not want parking on Capitol Square or the streets, we could ultimately build something like a 1,500-car garage 3 levels below grade on that site, with the provision that ultimately if the Senate needed more structures it could be built on top of that. So we are hoping that we will get clearance so that we can begin to look more seriously about that site as a possible garage.

There has been some discussion about possibly putting off the restoration of the Russell Garage for a couple of years until that is in place, so that we do not inconvenience the folks who are parking currently in the legislative garage.

FIRE SAFETY

Senator BENNETT. One last quick question. The status of the smoke detector installation, the Senate side of the Capitol?

Mr. HANTMAN. Amita?

Sorry. Amita Poole is our Superintendent of the Capitol.

Ms. POOLE. We have just completed putting in the backbone for the new fire alarm system and starting Monday of this coming week we will be installing the smoke detectors in areas throughout the Senate side where wiring is complete.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator BENNETT. There will be some additional questions that will be submitted for your response.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were submitted to the Architect for response subsequent to the hearing:]

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

REENGINEERING IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE OFFICE BUILDINGS

Question. In your testimony you indicate that significant re-engineering has already occurred in your agency and cite the consolidation of shops within both the House and Senate office buildings which has reduced the number of supervisors. What shops were consolidated and how many supervisors were reduced?

Answer. In the Capitol Building separate House and Senate side Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) shops were consolidated. In both the Senate and House Office Buildings the second and third shifts of the HVAC and Plumbing operations were consolidated. Grounds maintenance activities of the Library Buildings and Grounds and Supreme Court were consolidated under the supervision of the Capitol Grounds. These and other initiatives have reduced the number of supervisory positions from 306 in January 1998 to 300 as of March 1999.

K-9 FACILITY RENOVATION

Question. What is the status of the K-9 facility renovation?

Answer. The new K-9 facility is 95 percent complete. Remaining work includes the installation of the heating and air-conditioning unit, installation of ductwork, installing the ceiling in the food preparation area, completion of exterior painting, completing the installation of the kennel fencing, and site seeding. Barring any significant weather problems, the facility will be completed by April 2, 1999.

FORT MEADE PROJECT

Question. When will the Ft. Meade project be completed and available for occupancy?

Answer. Anticipating the approval of the pending reprogramming request, a contract award is planned for April 1999. Based on the April award, completion of the first book storage module is scheduled for July of 2000.

AOC FINANCIAL AND BUDGET STATUS REPORTS

Question. The Architect of the Capital (AOC) has yet to provide certain basic_reports, such as quarterly financial and budget status reports, that the Committee has requested over the past several years. Why hasn't the AOC responded to these requests? How and when will the AOC provide better financial reports to the committee? When does the AOC plan to be fully responsive to this request for financial and budget status reports? What plans does the AOC have to provide this type of information while it is using its interim financial management system? Does the AOC plan to reconcile this information to its budget submission?

Answer. With the implementation of the new Financial Management System, the AOC expects to fully comply with the Committee's request for quarterly financial statements and budget status reports and to provide a reconciliation of the information reflected on these reports with the budget submission. We are using GAO's guidance to develop the specific requirements for the requested reports in our Request For Proposal (RFP) process and we will confirm the requirement with the Committee staff prior to issuing the RFP. With the new system we also expect to be more responsive to any new requests for information since the new system will contain modern report writing tools.

For the interim period, prior to the implementation of the new FMS, we plan to prepare the requested budget status reports and the reconciliations with the budget submission by preparing spreadsheet based reports containing data from several sources. Upon confirming the reporting requirements with GAO and the Committee over the next few weeks, we will be able to develop the spreadsheets and take steps to begin capturing any currently unavailable required information. We plan to come to closure on this issue, and have an agreed to interim solution by the end of April, 1999.

We apologize for not being as responsive as necessary on this issue and we will work hard towards meeting your reporting requests as quickly as possible. The AOC spent several months in early 1998 working with the GAO to create the requested reports based on the reports that the GAO provides the Senate. We had originally created a Budget Status Report to address this need. However, this report has been determined to be inadequate for the Committee's needs due to the combining of current and prior year financial information and the lack of project status information.

ANNUAL AND MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS

Question What is the total number of annual projects funded in fiscal year 1990° What number of those projects have been started What number have been co pleted?

Answer. A total of 55 annual projects were funded in fiscal year 1999. All of the projects are in various stages of ether construction, design or specification develop ment, or procurement. At this time, none of the projects are considered 100 percent complete.

Question. What is the total number of multi-year projects that the AOC currently has underway? How many of those projects have been started?

Answer. The AOC has 98 multi-year projects currently underway and the majority are under construction Of the 98 projects, 21 have not had funds obligated against them. Nineteen of the 21 projects are either in design or specification development, procurement, or are awaiting client or oversight approval to proceed.

YIK PROGRAM

Question. What has been spent to date on your Y2K program, and what was requested in your 2000 budget?

Answer. The AOC has spent a total of $2,537,000 on Y2K programs. The signifi cant projects that funds have been spent on include the replacement of the accounting system, upgrading the procurement system, replacement of the work order system and replacement of noncompliant personal computers. It is anticipated that an additional $103,000 will be spent on Y2K system initiatives from currently available funds. The AOC is requesting $1,444,000 from funds appropriated to the General Accounting Office for Y2K compliance and contingency planning activities.

SENATE RESTAURANTS

Question. Last year you predicted that the Senate restaurants would be $200,000 in the black in 1998 and $600,000 in the black in 1999. What was the financial balance in 1998 and what do you currently project for 1999 and 2000?

Answer. The year end financial statements for fiscal year 1998 (which included appropriated funds and revolving funds) for the Senate Restaurants indicates a loss of $607,865. Included in this loss is the one time expense for the buyout of $753,282. This expense includes approximately $87,300 in terminal leave which would not have been charged as well as an increase in replacement labor (approximately $70,500) while the Restaurant was being reorganized. The net loss would have been approximately $450,100.

As we have continually noted with the Architect of the Capitol's Re-engineering Plan, the savings from the buyouts offered are not realized until the following year. Currently, the Senate Restaurants project a profit of $261,000 for 1999. Included in the operating expenses is the repayment of a contingent fund loan of $275,000 provided to cover the balance of buyout payments which occurred in fiscal year 1999.

This profit is based on the current operating configuration of the Restaurants. We are actively working with the Rules Committee to finalize the services offered within the Restaurants and only a positive impact on the financial statements is planned.

RUSSELL COURTYARD BOXWOODS

Question. Please explain why the English Boxwood plants in the Russell Courtyard were destroyed. What are your plans for replanting the area where the Boxwoods were removed? What are your plans for the English Boxwood's that remain in the Russell Courtyard?

Answer. The boxwoods have overgrown the walkways, impeding the passageways for pedestrians, and are in need of replacement. In fact, a project was included in the AOC's fiscal year 1998 budget request to Renovate and Restore the Russell Courtyard which included the replacement of the overgrown boxwoods with smaller ones. This project was actually funded by a fiscal year 1997 reprogramming but placed on hold because of the then proposed use of the Courtyard. While the boxwoods were removed to make way for constructing a building that will provide temporary "swing space" for various Senate committees during renovation of the Dirksen Building, they were slated for removal and replacement in any event. We have looked at the option of heavy pruning to restore pedestrian access to the walkways, but the appearance of the boxwoods would be ruined.

Accordingly, after the "swing space" facility is demolished, we plan to remove the remaining boxwoods and replace them all with appropriately-sized three to four foot