tions to disclose their computer systems' ability to operate after January 1, 2000.

We must sweep in front of our own stoop first.

The Federal Government has responsibilities both internally and externally to provide for the health, welfare, and safety of American citizens. We must be responsible and be prepared.

As chairman of this subcommittee, I plan to be as aggressive with our own agencies as I have been with the executive branch and the private sector.

That is why I have asked the General Accounting Office [GAO] to review the conversion plans of legislative branch agencies. We must deal with the conversions now to ensure that the legislative branch will be able to perform its responsibilities when the time

comes.

Before we begin, I would like to make some general observations about the testimony we are about to hear.

First, the police are to be commended for presenting the committee with a budget that more accurately reflects the actual historical spending patterns of the U.S. Capitol Police.

In addition, the work that has been done by the Board and Bob Greely to upgrade the security infrastructure of the Capitol campus has been first rate.

After the Police Board testifies, we will hear from the Secretary of the Senate, the Honorable Gary Sisco.

This is the second year in a row that the Secretary has requested flat funding except for the COLA adjustment.

Not only has the Secretary been able to keep his budget level, but the office has been aggressively pursuing a number of projects crucial to the future of the Senate-namely, the legislative information system [LIS], and the financial management information system [FMIS].

More importantly, the Secretary's office has been exemplary in responding to requests for information from this committee as well as modifying and simplifying his budget to meet the needs of this

committee.

The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has been equally as responsive in assisting this committee in juggling the financial needs of the legislative branch.

Last year CBO requested a 1.9-percent increase in their budget from the fiscal year 1997 level. When the House and Senate were in conference and trying to find money necessary to stabilize the GAO, CBO selflessly offered to further reduce their almost modest budget.

The result was that CBO received only a 1.1-percent increase over its fiscal year 1997 level. This year CBO has requested an overall budget increase of 4.6 percent.

I would like to thank Senator Dorgan for his work on this subcommittee. Your assistance last year, and in particular with the GAO, was very, very helpful. I have come to depend on your solid understanding of the issues facing this subcommittee. And I look forward to the benefit of your counsel again this year.

I also understand that you have a new member of your staff helping with your appropriations work. I would like to welcome Shelly Feist to her first legislative branch appropriations hearing.

Senator Dorgan, would you like to make an opening statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Thank you, Senator Bennett. As you noted, the request for the Legislative Branch Subcommittee for fiscal year 1999 totals $2,466,030,600, an increase of 9.6 percent over the discretionary amount enacted in last year's bill. For the Senate items only, the amount requested for fiscal year 1999 totals $527,292,000, an increase of $23,855.000, or 4.74 percent, from last year's enacted level.

I am glad to see that the Senate is doing its part to hold tight onto its budgetary reins. I expect that because the budgetary constraints on the domestic discretionary budget will be tight-together with the efforts to balance the budget in the next few years the 302(b) allocation to this particular subcommittee will also be tight.

Mr. Chairman, I have seen several articles stating that the House is interested in cutting President Clinton's budget_request for the legislative branch. I wanted to take a minute at the start of our first hearing to remind everyone that, unlike executive branch agencies, the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] and the President do not have their own views and ideas about levels of expenditure for the budget of the legislative branch.

Therefore, because the House seems to be making a big to-do about cutting President Clinton's budget request, I want to make sure that everyone here is aware that none of the items in the subcommittee's request are the President's request. This budget has been submitted by the legislative branch for inclusion in the President's budget and then resubmitted back to us in full. The President and OMB do not question the amounts in the budget, through these hearings, if we find that certain requests are inflated, or cannot be justified, the responsibility cannot be laid at the President's doorstep. The budget for the legislative branch is Congress' own, not President Clinton's.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing what I view to be an excellent working relationship with you on this bill, and I look forward to the testimony of each of our witnesses here today. Senator BENNETT. Thank you Senator Dorgan.

Would you like to make a statement, Senator Stevens?

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. I would like to thank Senator Bennett for his stewardship as chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. Senator Bennett as well as Senator Dorgan did a good job last year of brokering a compromise with the House to keep the legislative branch spending to a minimum while also providing for some important maintenance projects.

With the substantial majority of spending in the legislative branch dedicated to salaries, spending for projects, particularly in the budget of the Architect, has been the natural place to find savings.

We have made some of those savings in the past, but we will have to be careful this year that we do not save money now at the

risk of spending more later to take care of maintenance projects that were once small but became large because we neglected them.

I would also like to commend Senator Bennett for his work on the year 2000 computer conversion. I want to assure that every subcommittee addresses this problem this year.

This is one area which has potentially devastating results for all Americans if the Federal Government does not properly solve the problem.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to assisting you with your work on this subcommittee.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Senator Stevens.

Our first witnesses are the U.S. Capitol Police Board. The Honorable Bill Livingood, the House Sergeant at Arms is the Chairman of the Board this year. He is accompanied by the Honorable Gregory Casey, the Senate Sergeant at Arms; the Honorable Alan Hantman, the Architect of the Capitol; and Chief Abrecht, the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police.

I want to thank the Board for taking the time to recess from their training seminar to appear today.

Last year, the police received a 2.7-percent increase over their fiscal year 1997 level. They are requesting a 14.1-percent increase in fiscal year 1999.

We look forward to your testimony.

Mr. Livingood.

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF MR. LIVINGOOD

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you to present the fiscal year 1999 budget request for the U.S. Capitol Police.

As this budget request shows, we have reached an interesting point in the professional development of the U.S. Capitol Police. More than at any time in the past, the U.S. Capitol Police is undergoing a period of change in order to meet the increasing demands of its mission. Not only must we guard against new threats to the safety and security of the Capitol complex, but the manner in which we meet these threats is evolving.

In the past, the considered proper response to new security threats was to add more police officers to the Department. That was the case following the 1954 shooting in the House gallery and the 1971 and 1983 bombings of the Senate wing of the Capitol. Today, as we prepare to enter the next century, the U.S. Capitol Police Board feels that the more effective and efficient method of better securing the Capitol complex rests with the increased use of technology. While the safety and security of the congressional community and visiting public will always primarily rely on highly qualified and highly trained police officers, the application of stateof-the-art security technology can certainly be used to augment the officer in the field.

To this end, we have included five new components in the general expenses appropriation that are key to setting this initiative in motion: the hazardous materials program, information security systems, life-cycle replacement of physical security systems, physical security annual maintenance, and new physical security systems installations. Each is considered to be integral to the overall

risk management efforts of the U.S. Capitol Police because they are needed to detect, deter, or mitigate the effects of security threats. Increased operational and administrative demands placed on the Department translate into increased demands on our personnel. Therefore, it is essential that we provide our officers and support staff with the level of training they need to keep pace with the changing nature of their jobs. The requested level of funding for tuition expenses will be used to provide outside professional instruction to our personnel on topics ranging from labor/management relations to chemical and biological attack response.

With regard to personnel issues, it has been a longstanding goal of the U.S. Capitol Police Board to ensure that the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police maintain a pay parity with their counterparts in other law enforcement agencies. Therefore, the USCP fiscal year 1999 budget submission once again includes a request to fund pay initiatives which provide holiday pay, Sunday premium pay, and shift differential. Because police departments need to be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, this type of differential pay is considered standard and customary in law enforcement agencies. Therefore, in order to fairly compensate our personnel who are required to work throughout the night, on Sundays and holidays, the Ú.S. Capitol Police Board feels it is imperative that this initiative be fully funded.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to state the support of the U.S. Capitol Police Board for a funding request which is included in the Architect's budget submission. Several facilities currently used by the U.S. Capitol Police can no longer adequately support the mission of the Department. The current condition of some of these facilities creates life safety and working condition concerns for our personnel. Others, such as the offsite delivery center and the vehicle maintenance facility, have simply outlived their usefulness and are in need of significant repair and expansion or relocation to another site.

This is especially true of the offsite delivery center due to the increased level of use which is anticipated when we begin screening House deliveries. In addition, our training facilities are woefully inadequate. The entire primary training facility of the U.S. Capitol Police consists of three converted offices in the Ford House Office Building. It is simply impossible to support the training needs of a 1,300-member department with a mission as diverse and important as that of the U.S. Capitol Police in three classrooms in an office building.

In response to these concerns, the Architect has requested an appropriation to commission a comprehensive study of the facility requirements of the department. Known as the Capitol Complex Integrated Security Facilities Program, this study will serve as the blueprint on how to best address these facilities concerns. In the interim, the Architect is requesting funding to address the more immediate repair and Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations concerns. In view of these pressing issues, the Board is requesting full funding for all of the Architect's budget requests affecting the U.S. Capitol Police facilities.

Over the course of the last year, we have met with and heard the concerns of the committees of jurisdiction regarding how to best

protect against the varied threats and security concerns we face today. This budget submission reflects a reasonable, measured, and prudent approach to ensuring the safety and security of the Congress, the Capitol complex and the visiting public and the viability of the U.S. Capitol Police. We will continue to work with you and the authorizing committees as we address issues concerning risk management, security, and law enforcement.

In closing, I would like to commend the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. Regardless of the challenge, they continually perform their duty in a diligent and professional manner. The responsibilities which rest on the shoulders of our personnel are daunting. Each day, they must ensure the safety and security of the congressional community and thousands of constituents by protecting them from crime and acts of violence. In doing so, they allow the national legislative process to proceed unhindered. However, in order to remain viable, the level of support the U.S. Capitol Police receives must be commensurate with the level and quality of service expected by the Congress and the public. This budget request is intended to meet that goal.

A detailed budget for the U.S. Capitol Police has been submitted to the committee. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Livingood.
Mr. Casey.

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GREG CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the fiscal year 1999 budget request for the U.S. Capitol Police.

Due to the leadership and support of this committee, and the dedication of our personnel, the U.S. Capitol Police has achieved notable success in undertaking new responsibilities which address the evolving threats to the safety and security of the U.S. Congress and those who work and visit within the Capitol complex.

The U.S. Capitol Police currently faces a number of management information system issues that require a comprehensive study. The Board is continuing to seek an avenue to address these issues in consultation with the committees of jurisdiction. Our overall goal in seeking this study is to provide the Police Board and the police command staff with the data necessary to manage the department and its personnel in a cost-effective and efficient manner. While the conversion of House and Senate payrolls to the National Finance Center will address a number of issues, such as providing comprehensive payroll data reporting, several other systems, such as the time and attendance and inventory control system, are antiquated and not year 2000 compliant.

Included in this budget submission are funds to cover the department's computer and telecommunications system expenses which were previously included in the budget of the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms. The Senate has provided the U.S. Capitol Police with extensive equipment and technical support over the past several years. However, I feel it makes good business sense that the Police Board and the police command staff have more direct control of the funds required to purchase and operate these systems.