D-6

Basic committee amendment information that could be supplied by the committees/subcommittees themselves for the new legislative information system would include amendment sponsor, description, status, and vote information. Full transcripts of all markups would be helpful but would be time-consuming for committee staff to compile. Supplementary use of CQ or Legi-Slate markup summaries (and the full text transcripts of selected markups compiled by Federal News Service) could be substituted, where congressional offices wish to purchase them.

LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM

Mr. PACKARD. Since it is of such importance, have you considered maybe meeting with the Government Printing Office or anyone else for that matter that would be involved, and seeing if there can't be a better working relationship to work out all of the concerns?

Dr. BILLINGTON. With regard to the legislative information plans? Yes, at the beginning of this effort, the Library staff discussed with GPO staff the general approach of the plan, and we also gave their staff a draft of the plan to review and included some of their comments where appropriate. In order to meet a deadline for submitting the report to the committee, we realized there was not a lot of time for comment. And GPO now has the final plan and we hope to work with them.

Mr. PACKARD. Would you have any problems with working out a joint report to us relative to your progress, and it is important to us that the concerns be worked out together, jointly. Give us a report on your meetings with them.

Dr. BILLINGTON. We would be happy to. Something in addition to incorporating their comments in the existing report? You want us to work with them and then submit a new report apart from this? Is that the idea?

Mr. PACKARD. I would like a report back as to how you have addressed their concerns.

Dr. BILLINGTON. All right. A report from us on how we have addressed their concerns?

Mr. PACKARD. I think a joint report between the two of you. I don't need one from each of you. I want to be certain that have you worked together, you have addressed the concerns, and that we feel comfortable that you are working in concert with each other, rather than against each other.

Dr. BILLINGTON. Sure. We would be glad to do that, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. PACKARD. I have some questions I will submit at this time to be answered for the record.

[The questions and responses follow:]

TOTAL REQUESTED INCREASE

Question. The request is to increase your appropriated budget by almost $20.6 million ($20,597,000). Briefly outline the primary components of that increase? Response. Two-thirds, $13.9 million dollars, is required simply to fund mandatory pay raises and unavoidable price-level increases. The remaining $6.7 million is to fund strategic priorities including security of the collections and the transition to the electronic information age.

MANDATORY ITEM

Question. There is a $2.9 million "mandatory" item requested for merit increases. How many merit increases are given annually? What is the criteria used to award these increases?

Response. The $2.9 million "mandatory item" funds within-grade-increases and positions based on career ladders not merit increases. A within-grade-increase is an adjustment to an employee's basic rate of pay after certification of acceptable level of performance and completion of a prescribed waiting period. Positions based on career ladders are positions that contain multiple skill and pay levels, thus allowing an employee to advance in the same occupational series.

Cash awards and quality step increases, which the Committee may regard as merit increases, are funded by savings in service units' salary budgets and are not included in the $2.9 million request. During Fiscal 1995, the Library gave 2,104

such awards to library staff. Cash awards may be given for actions producing tangible savings to the Library of $1,000 or more or intangible value to government operations and programs; performance exceeding normal position requirements over a sustained period; and performance of a one-time non-recurring nature that is in the public interest and connected with official employment. Quality step increases may be given when performance in all important elements of a position substantially exceeds normal requirements and when total performance gives specific evidence of continuing at this very high level.

Question. Does this $2.9 million fully fund the merit increases?

Response. The $2.9 million requested fully funds within-grade-increases and position based on career ladders.

Question. Many agencies absorb some or all of these salary adjustments from salaries remaining from staff turnover. The theory is that the grade level of replacement staff will be lower than more senior staff who have departed. Have you taken this into account in making this estimate?

Response. Yes. The Library reduced its request for the costs of within-grade-increases and mandatory pay raises by 4 percent to reflect average agency attrition. During Fiscal 1995, for example, our attrition rate was 3.5 percent.

Question. How much in the mandatory items is for the new FTE positions requested?

Response. None of the amounts included in the Mandatory Items are for new FTE positions requested because the Library cannot know at the time the estimates are calculated which positions, or if any positions, will be approved.

Question. How are the mandatory items computed?

Response. Several years ago, at the request of the House Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations, the General Accounting Office reviewed the Library's process for computing the mandatory items. The GAO review determined that the methodology used by the Library in the past was appropriate with one exception—that a reduction in the mandatory request should be taken for vacancies. This reduction has been factored into the mandatory items since that time. The Library continues to use this adjusted methodology which is as follows:

a. Ingrades are calculated from projected data based on current staff.

b. Pay raises are calculated using current staffing levels (FTEs) and vacant positions. After the pay raises are estimated for annualization of current fiscal year raises and for budget fiscal year raises, a percentage reduction is taken to cover attrition and vacancies.

Question. Another mandatory item is for the anticipated January 1997 comparability pay adjustment (commonly known as a COLA). Your estimate ($5.8 million) is based on a 3.1% adjustment. The ECI-based increase has been calculated at 2.3%. How did you arrive at the 3.1%?

Response. The Library's FY 1997 estimates were based on 3.1% increase from information provided by the Office of Management and Budget. This 3.1% includes both the annual salary adjustment (COLA) and locality-based payments. The ECI adjustment is projected at a rate of 2.3% for the annual salary adjustment only. While it appears that our present request exceeds the projected adjustment, we have included a locality-based increase.

SENIOR LEVEL BONUSES

Question. Is this the item which funds senior staff bonuses?

Response. No. Senior Level staff bonuses (i.e., awards) are funded by savings in service units' budgets.

Question. How many bonuses were awarded to senior staff last year? What was the average bonus? (For the record, list each bonus, the recipient, and the reason for the award.)

Response. In Fiscal 1995, the Library gave 9 Senior Level employees performance awards, with an average award of $2,168. A Senior Level performance award is a lump sum payment based on outstanding achievement or when the employee has reached the salary limit allowed by law. Detailed information on each award is shown below:

Invaluable contributions to CRS through membership on the Management Support team, the 104th Congress planning Group, and other task forces with Service-wide responsibilities.

Great effectiveness as CRS senior specialist representative combined with a considerable body of research and analysis for the Congress; significant contributions to the Williamsburg Conference for new members and the PPI series.

Exceptional performance on special assignments of considerable importance including negotiating with CREA on Senior Level pay and performance, recommending improvements to the performance evaluation system, providing support for the Congressional Black Caucus Legislative Weekend, and contributing legal and policy advice on matters of importance to CRS.

Significant contributions to mission effectiveness through internal reports, analyses, and projects and through external liaison with key officials in the Library, the Congress, and other institutions. Coordinated the CRS Data team which continued implementation of the new data system on services and products that CRS provides to Congress.

Performance award instead of a performance-based pay adjustment because the employee had reached the salary limit allowed by law. Significant contributions to CRS through membership on the Management Team Support Group, the 104th Congress Planning Group, the LC "Congressional Team", and other ad hoc groups. Effective leadership as Acting Chief of the Government Division during the time it was without a permanent chief.

Extraordinary productivity in the Cataloging directorate which allowed the Library to surpass in arrearage reduction goals for books; spearheading the establishment of the national program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC); providing vision and support to the team that developed the electronic CIP (ECIP) and electronic text conversion programs.

During Fiscal 1995, a Library retiree also received the following distinguished service award:

RECIPIENT

AMOUNT
OF
AWARD

REASON FOR AWARD

Barbara Ringer $10,000

Distinguished service and outstanding contributions to the Copyright Office, the Library, and the world intellectual property community.

Senior Level pay adjustments--increases to the basic rates of pay based on performance--totalled $253,425 in Fiscal 1995. The average pay adjustment was $2,668, based on 95 Senior Level employees rated (non-bargaining unit and bargaining unit.)