Nevertheless, with regard to the FLSA requirements there are some preliminary matters which I feel must be addressed that will effect the ability of the Capitol Police to comply with this statute. First, as you are no doubt aware, the Congress has long recognized the unique nature of law enforcement work and has, therefore, enacted special statutes to cover overtime compensation and compensatory time off for the Capitol Police (40 U.S.C. 206b and c). In dealing with the Police overtime issue, it is important for the Congress to be aware of the fact that these statutes would need to be repealed on the effective date of FLSA application so that there is no doubt as to what statute should be applied to determine overtime entitlements. Regardless of the ultimate application of the Congressional Accountability Act upon the Capitol Police, it is apparent there will be a sizable increase in overtime expenses. Further, there appears to be a lack of clarity in the Accountability Act regarding the specific treatment of law enforcement officers under FLSA. For several years, with the assistance of this and other committees, the Capitol Police has made progress in implementing initiatives designed to treat the Capitol Police in a manner consistent with other similarly situated Federal Law Enforcement Officers. Therefore, we would ask that the Congressional entities charged with the implementation of the FLSA provisions of the Accountability Act ensure that for the purposes of these provisions the Capitol Police are treated the same as other Federal Law Enforcement Officers. MAGNETOMETERS Question. In the fiscal year 1995 Act, $2,015,000 was appropriated for the purchase and installation of X-ray machines and magnetometers. Has this new equipment been purchased and installed? Answer. Forty metal detectors were purchased by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) in July of 1994. The approximate cost to procure these items was $153,000. The replacement machines have now been installed throughout the Complex. Also, at the same time, six X-ray inspection systems were procured and installed by AOC representatives. The acquisition cost for these machines was approximately $462,000. Question. What is the status of this project? Answer. The Capitol Police Board in conjunction with the Chief of the United States Capitol Police is currently conducting an X-ray Inspection System comparison test to determine what X-ray technology would be most advantageous for the Government in terms of cost and detection capability. The test occurred on June 1, 1995, and the contract should be awarded in approximately 30-45 days. According to an AOC representative, $26,000 was allocated to cover expenses associated with the comparison test for rental machines, shipment expenses, etc. The budget office of the AOC has earmarked approximately $1.3 million for the acquisition of approximately twenty-six state-of-the-art X-ray inspection systems to be installed at select public and staff entrances of the Congressional Office Buildings. The estimated cost per machine is $50,000. Once all these items have been procured and installed there will be an unobligated balance of approximately $74,000. REDUCTION IN FULL TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS Question. Section 307 of the Fiscal Year 1994 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act mandated a 4 percent reduction in Full-Time-Equivalent Positions (FTE's) by the end of fiscal year 1995, with 62.5 percent of this reduction to be accomplished by the end of fiscal year 1994. What is your current status with respect to this requirement? Answer. The Capitol Police have been able to fully comply with this Act by reducing our FTE level to the authorized level of 1,281 positions as of October 1, 1994. This was achieved through normal attrition. No adverse personnel actions were required to obtain the mandated FTE base. Question. What manpower savings have you achieved by eliminating coverage of some offices such as OTA at 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., and other posts? Answer. At the present time 10 police positions are necessary to provide protection around the clock for the OTA offices at 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. Should OTA vacate that space, these officers would be available for re-assignment. It should be noted that the Capitol Police have recently been tasked with additional responsibilities without additional staffing. These include the security of the Senate Page dorm, enhanced security around the Capitol Building, and increased control of the permit parking immediately adjacent to the House and Senate office buildings to diminish the risk of terrorists attack. These increased responsibilities have been met by the use of overtime, and we would anticipate using any personnel freed up as a result of OTA closing to reduce these overtime expenditures. Question. Should the decision be made to dispose of one or more of the House Annex buildings, how many positions would it be possible to eliminate? Answer. The current staffing for Annex I is six officers, Annex II is fifteen officers, and Annex III is four officers. Again, we would anticipate re-assigning these personnel to reduce overtime at newly created posts for which no increased staffing has been provided. SIZE OF FORCE Question. The size of the Capitol Police Force is somewhat smaller than it was just two years ago. What is your current strength? How many are civilian employees and has this affected your ability to respond to calls for police service? Answer. The Capitol Police reduced their size from 1,357 positions in fiscal year 1992 to 1,281 positions in fiscal year 1994. There are currently 1,075 sworn positions and 206 civilian positions. The Department evaluated its personnel assignments and converted those positions that could effectively and efficiently be staffed by civilian personnel. This structure allowed us to place sworn police personnel in those assignments that require the presence of individuals with full police powers. It also allows us the flexibility to use personnel in assignments more closely related to the training they have received. Question. You mentioned that you are having to work officers on overtime a lot. How has this affected your officers? Answer. First, let me say that I am extremely proud of the dedication and sense of duty our officers have displayed to protect the Capitol complex, the Congressional community, and the public following the Oklahoma bombing. While this sense of duty is displayed on a daily basis, they have certainly risen to the occasion in the past month. With regard to overtime, I am aware the officers have been called upon to work a considerable amount of overtime in order for the Department to meet its mission. I am equally sensitive to the personal and family needs of our officers. I certainly do not want to work officers to the point that would degrade their effectiveness. As such, most of the overtime being worked is on a volunteer basis. I am also concerned about costs associated with this overtime. Therefore, in view of all these factors, we are actively pursuing ways to maintain an enhanced security posture without having officers work excessive overtime and adversely affecting our budget. Question. How much have you spent on overtime this year? Will you be able to stay within your overtime budget for this fiscal year? Answer. As a result of the heightened security for the Capitol Complex and the numerous late sessions that have been conducted by the Congress, we have experienced an increase in our overtime costs for this fiscal year. I should also mention that we have found it necessary to work personnel in an additional duty status because of the vacancies that we have been unable to fill. The hiring freeze that was imposed after the election caused us to cancel a recruit training class in April. As of April 30, 1995, we have expended $1,750,000 for overtime expenses. In the near future we will need to come to the Committee for authority to reprogram funds in our salary account for overtime expenditures. At the current rate of expenditure ($20,000 per day) we will expend approximately $4,100,000 by the end of the fiscal year. With the passage of the Congressional Accountability Act, additional duty performed under the guidelines of the Fair Labor Standard Act must be monetarily compensated. This will have an affect on our overtime expenses for fiscal year 1996. We are constantly evaluating our need to work personnel in an additional duty status to ensure that overtime expenses are held to a minimum. BUDGET INCREASE Question. Your budget submission reflects an increase of approximately 4 percent over your appropriation for fiscal year 1995. Would you explain this increase for your Personnel and General Expenses? Answer. Other than the $190,000 for General Expenses for the biennial promotion examination, the entire increase is related to Personnel Expenses. This increase, $2,642,000, is for the anticipated fiscal year 1996 COLA and Comparability Pay increase and the annualized cost of the fiscal year 1995 COLA and Comparability Pay ($439,000.) We are committed to keeping our personnel comparable in pay to our counterparts in Federal Law Enforcement (the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division and the U.S. Park Police.) In anticipation that the Congress is going to con tinue this parity, funds are requested for the expected fiscal year 1996 COLA and Comparability Pay of $1,616,000 and the resulting benefit cost that will increase by $587,000. The General Expense increase, $190,000, is the maximum increase allowable under the ceiling for administrative expenses (Public Law 103-69). The entire increase was placed in our object class for Other Services to fund the cost of the biennial promotion examination. All increases due to higher unit prices and inflationary factors will need to be absorbed within this funding level. This will be accomplished by purchasing fewer quantities of uniform items and accessories and protracting our replacement of equipment items over a longer period. SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS Senator MACK. We appreciate all of you being here, and for the information that you provided us. Chief ABRECHT. Thank you, sir. [Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., Monday, May 15, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Monday, May 22.] LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 MONDAY, MAY 22, 1995 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 1:59 p.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Connie Mack (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Mack, Bennett, Murray, and Mikulski. ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. WHITE, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL WILLIAM L. ENSIGN, ASSISTANT ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL KATHY GAUSE, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY OFFICER ROBERT SHERMAN, DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGE- LARRY STOFFEL, SUPERINTENDENT, SENATE OFFICE BUILDINGS BEN WIMBERLY, GENERAL COUNSEL OPENING STATEMENT OF CONNIE MACK Senator MACK. I want to welcome Mr. White, the Architect of the Capitol. I gather that there are folks that you have brought with you. We want to extend our welcome to you, as well. This is the third meeting of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. Today we will be hearing from the Architect of the Capitol and the Government Printing Office. As you know, the Republican conference passed a resolution stating an objective of reducing the Legislative Branch Subcommittee accounts by $200 million. That is a significant effort, and many of the agencies have been in and presented their budgets. Some have done an extraordinary job of either meeting targets that were established for them or have gone beyond that. The requests that we will be hearing today, both from the Architect and from the Printing Office, are asking for increases. And I just will say to you up front that that is just not going to happen. From one respect, we do have the resolution that is moving me in that direction. But also, we have these other agencies making reductions. |