Answer pertaining to Service Department: The Service Department is chartered to: (a) provide Production Services in two areas, Graphic Arts (i.e. Composing, Printing, Folding, Addressing, etc.) and Micrographics; (b) the acquisition, allocation, accounting and maintenance of authorized office equipment for the U.S.Senate, nationwide and; (c) storage and distribution of bound documents published for the Senate under the auspices and at the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing. Cost data for these services is as follows:

*Includes supply costs for Document Storage and Distribution function.

**Based on average salaries, including pro-rate share of

executive staff, but excluding longevity.

Question: Does the new system being devised as a replacement for
CMS offer significant new and costly features?

Answer: In terms of features and capabilities, the specifications for a replacement for CMS include enhancements and substantially improved characteristics. At the current time, we have not completed our financial analysis of the magnitude of expenditures required to support this replacement. Initial projections, however,

indicate that the system life cost, based on an eight year life cycle, will be less than CMS running for the same period, with the new system offering improved and expanded capabilities. while the replacement will be new and improved, the total cost should be less than an extension of CMS.

Therefore,

Question: You were forced to establish a separate Senate Placement Office this past year when the Congressional Placement Office was disbanded. Has this proven cost-effective? In other words, is the cost of maintaining a separate placement office greater than our share of the cost of the Gongressional Placement Office? Answer: It is difficult to establish the cost of the former Congressional Placement Office since it operated under the jurisdiction of the House Administration Committee. Further, it appears no detailed cost records were kept that would allow us to estimate the Senate's share of the total cost.

We do know, however, that the Congressional Placement Office had nine employees, a dedicated mini-computer, and a fairly large suite of office space. The new Senate Placement Office has four employees, one small office and no dedicated computer support.

Because of the workload figures highlighted in my statement, and based on comments received from Senate offices, this service is valuable and cost effective.

Question: A past Senate Management Board and the Rules Committee have endorsed a transfer of the material supply function housed in your Service Department to the Stationery Room managed by the Secretary. What costs are there in your FY83 budget--both personnel and supplies--to carry out this supply function?

Answer: While the Senate Management Board and the Rules Committee have endorsed a transfer of the material supply function, the actual implementation of this transfer has been held in abeyance pending completion of the Hart Building and relocation of the Stationery Room and concurrent expansion of the ancillary warehouse facilities. The Service Department currently has two employees working in its central supply section and their primary responsibility is the ordering and issuance of those items necessary to Service Department operations. Approximately 10% of their time is spent on this support to other Senate offices, and the expense portion of the FY83 budget request contains $100,000 for this secondary function.

Question: Can you elaborate on your statement that you are seeking cheaper alternatives to the present phone service? When might we expect a new arrangement in place?

Answer: As I stated in my prepared statement, rates for telephone services have skyrocketed in the past year. As a result, we began to look into ways to provide an equal service, but at less cost.

Due to a number of legal actions and legislation approved during the past few years, the door for competition has been opened. In other words, for the consumer, there is no longer one "Telephone

11

Company. Many of the new businesses in the telecommunications area operate in specialized services such as long distance, mobile phones, etc.

To date, we have concentrated on examining alternative long distance service. We have received some unsolicited proposals and, if the data in these proposals is anywhere near correct, we should be able to realize a savings of about 30%. If implemented prior to October 1982, our budget for long distance could be reduced by approximately $1,000,000.

We plan to proceed rapidly over the course of the next few months to meet that objective.

Question: The account of Salaries of Senate Officers and Employees includes a line for agency contributions, longevity compensation and merit compensation. A major portion of the longevity compensation for FY83 is for employees of your office. Do you think the longevity compensation program is essential to maintain the high quality staff now serving your office?

Wouldn't a funding level which enables you to reward highly competent employees through generous merit increases be sufficient?

Assuming the continuation of the longevity compensation program, what problems would you encounter if we consolidate your office's longevity compensation costs into the line item for the Office of the Sergeant at Arms?

Answer: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the longevity compensation program bears any relevance to the high quality staff presently employed in my office. The action of the Appropriations Committee in granting me a lump sum authority makes it possible for me to reward these employees based on their work productivity and not on their years of service. Both the Secretary of the Senate and I are recommending that the longevity program be abolished; however, we need a year to thoroughly analyze the program to make our projections for salary and budget adjustments.

Question: The Secretary of the Senate has urged that the separate merit compensation program be abolished. Would you support this

recommendation?

Answer: We support the Secretary's recommendation and our 1983 budget request reflects this support.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DALE BUMPERS

Police Force Increases

1

Question: On page 2 of your printed testimony before the Rules Committee, you say: "An ongoing Capitol Police manpower utilization review... has effected a reduction of 68 manyears of duty assignment" However on page 5 of that statement you indicate that 47 additional police offices will be required in 1983 because of the Hart Building at a cost of $869,000. Why not simply reassign the manyears saved to the Hart Building detail?

Answer: In fiscal year 1982 there was a need for an additional 67 positions on the police roll to cover duty assignments. Many of these assignments had been given to the police in years prior to FY 82 and the police had been attempting to cover them with available manpower and the use of overtime. However, added to these assignments were increased requests for additional police services for Members, Committees, visiting dignitaries and miscellaneous assignments.

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.