As my deputy, Doug is able to and indeed fully participates in the deliberations of the commission but has no vote. He does take an active participatory role in those deliberations.

Mr. FAZIO. Is he in attendance at all of the meetings of the commission?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, he attends every meeting of the commission. Mr. FAZIO. Has that always been the practice or is this something you have been emphasizing more recently?

Mr. ANDERSON. No. It is my understanding that that has always been the practice. The deputy is there constantly and participates fully in the meetings of the commission.

Mr. FAZIO. This is his only occupation?

Mr. ANDERSON. This is his only occupation. He also is a lawyer and, as a matter of fact, was a major contributor to the drafting of the act, so he is uniquely fluent in every particular of it.

Mr. FAZIO. But he is not practicing law?

Mr. ANDERSON. He is not practicing law, no, sir.

Mr. FAZIO. Go ahead, Donn.

Mr. ANDERSON. I would like to place in the record the summary of the activities of the General Counsel's office. Since the committee has had an opportunity to have a discussion with Ms. Zeleniak, I would also like to include the summary of the activities and responsibilities of the Clerk's Office of Telephone Services and the new phone system.

[The summaries follow:]

GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE

The Clerk's General Counsel, Mr. Ross, had another challenging and busy year in 1987. At the request of the Speaker and Chairman Hamilton, the Office provided legal support and representation to the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran. Mr. Charles Tiefer, the Deputy Counsel, was detailed to the Committee on a nearly full-time basis, serving as Special Deputy Counsel to the Committee. The Office provided legal assistance to all phases of the Committee's work, ranging from representing the Committee in numerous Court proceedings involving witnesses to rendering legal opinions on various questions of law confronting the Committee. The assistance provided the Select Committee is just one example of the full range of legal services accorded the committees of the House in the conduct of investigations. Last year, as in previous years, the Office has assisted virtually every House committee in the detailed conduct of investigations.

The year also presented an increased case load with respect to the defense of statutes passed by the House. In what has become an all too familiar scenario, the House Leadership is called upon to offer the official defense of the constitutionality of statutes which, although they have been duly enacted, are not defended by the Department of Justice. The most visible of these cases are those involving the Independent Counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act and the Competition in Contracting Act. Both of these matters are currently before the Supreme Court. Several other cases litigated during the year have defended the constitutionality of other statutes.

1987 witnessed significant developments in the area of civil suits, seeking money damages, brought against Members of Congress and other Congressional entities. Perhaps the most significant of these cases addresses the vulnerability of a Member to a civil damages action for communications made to executive agencies and, through the media, to the public. This case, obviously one with great significance to all House Members, Chastain v. Sundquist, is currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a related case, involving the constitutional necessity for unrestricted communications between a Member and his constituents, the Office of General Counsel, representing the Speaker and the Leadership of the House, obtained an important victory in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision reversed the order of a Federal District

Judge who had enjoined a Member of the House from making statements on certain subjects. This brief comment on some matters of significance in the General Counsel's Office will be expanded in the insertion prepared for the hearing record.

OFFICE OF TELEPHONE SERVICES

Last year was a most memorable one for the Clerk's Office of Telephone Services, and I have the Chief of that office with me this afternoon, Ms. Susan Zeleniak. As many of you know, OTS managed the implementation of the new House telephone system. This has included the installation of the System 85 switch and the installation of phones throughout the House offices. The new system was cut over on August 14, 1987, after an extensive period of planning, installation of the main switch and the complete rewiring of the Longworth House Office Building. In addition to all offices in Longworth, new phones have been installed in the Members' offices on the fourth floor of Rayburn and some scattered offices, in all Rayburn committee and support offices; in all Annex 2 offices; and we are now wiring and installing in Annex 1. In future weeks, the remaining Rayburn and all Cannon and Capitol offices will receive their new phones.

The Clerk has been directing the AT&T installation through OTS with policy guidance from the Committee on House Administration and the Subcommittee on Office Systems, and this Subcommittee on Appropriations. It has been a major undertaking with assistance from the Architect of the Capitol and the House Office Buildings Superintendent; Property Supply Service; House Information Systems; and top officials of AT&T, who have responded promptly when problems have been encountered that required special attention from the company to make the House system fully functional. I believe we have resolved most of the problems and the work is now going smoothly. In fact, early critics of the system have now become supportive and feel the system will serve the House economically and efficiently. One of the early problems was that of the so-called WATS extenders; these, surprisingly, did not always work with the new switch. We have now provided a new "remote access" capability for House Members. This eliminated the need for the extenders and gives improved quality to the WATS service. We are anticipating new phone enhancements from AT&T in the spring, when the remainder of Member's offices will be wired. These enhancements will also be available for offices previously wired.

One of the early problems was that of the so-called WATS extenders; these, surprisingly, did not always work with the new switch. We have now provided a new "remote access" capability for House Members. This eliminated the need for the extenders and gives improved quality to the WATS service. We are anticipating new phone enhancements from AT&T in the spring, when the remainder of Member's offices will be wired. These enhancements will also be available for offices previously wired.

OTS is now responsible for not only monitoring the AT&T installation, but all facets of the House system-service, billings, etc. We anticipate approximately $30 million in savings to the House over the next ten years. In fact, as an example of how the new system will assist in our budget, the System 85 switch provides the opportunity to improve the cost-effectiveness of our long distance network. Changes have already been implemented and others anticipated that should result in a savings of $1 million in 1988.

I would like to express my thanks to this Subcommittee for its support during the changeover to the new system. As directed by the Subcommittee in the Continuing Resolution, the Clerk and the OTS staff carefully reviewed our contract with regard to withholding payment until early problems were resolved. Various reports were provided to you, Mr. Chairman, and with the approval of the Committee on House Administration, the initial payment was made to AT&T several weeks ago. We are, however, withholding a certain amount of funds pending final approval of the remote access feature and other enhancements expected in early April. Also, I want to state for the record my personal commendation to Ms. Zeleniak, the Chief of OTS, her Assistant Chief, Mr. William T. Kinter, and the entire OTS staff for their dedication to this project. It has been a tremendous effort and is well on the way to

success.

Mr. ANDERSON. I would like to just say a word about the Office of Finance. One of my offices that is always busy is that which is directed by Mr. McGuire, the House Office of Finance. I would commend his 30-page annual report to your attention and to that of your staff, and I certainly appreciate the work of the Finance

Office in taking care of our budget, disbursing payroll and benefit programs for House employees.

It is normal for Finance to have an increased workload in the first months of a new Congress, such as last year's beginning of the 100th Congress. The unusual thing about 1987 was that the spiral never abated during the year. The office's various sections coped with the new Federal Employees Retirement System and the Related Thrift Savings Plan; the paperwork requirements laid down by tax and immigration legislation; the changing budget situation; extensive computer program modifications; an open season in the health benefits program, and a very heavy workload in the volume of vouchers submitted by Members and all House offices.

During all of this, the General Accounting Office conducted its audit of Finance, and we again received a clean-that is, an excellent-report in the 1986 audit.

I would like to highlight some changes which were problematic to me as the new Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, one of the major changes made during the past year in the Clerk's Office took place in our Office of Legislative Operations, which is concerned with the various legislative duties that are conducted by the Clerk.

Because of consolidation in this office a few years ago, and after considerable discussion and review, it was returned to the earlier basic structure through changes approved in titles and personnel duties. The historical titles of Journal, Bill, Enrolling, Tally, and Reading clerks were returned to the individuals performing the duties of those offices. Several other personnel changes were affected and the entire office has been reorganized.

In another change that affected the House floor, the floor and committee reporters were again separated into two operations. The Office of Official Reporters of Debates is now functioning as in years previous to the consolidation with committee reporters. The Office of Official Reporters to Committees, which also handles the contracting for outside reporters as needed during our busy reporting season, is now operating as a separate entity.

I must say that both operations are going very well, and these changes reflect a need which I perceived and which was supported by the Members of our leadership and our Speaker: to insure that the fundamental processes of the House and the documents that are generated as part of those fundamental constitutional processes are always accurate and truly reflect the actions of the House and the verbage of our Members in effecting their will in our chamber and in the hearing rooms of the various committees of the House. I am very pleased to say that morale is high. Our employees in those areas are pleased with the reorganization, and I am in a posi tion to now state what I promised at the beginning of my first term, that the accuracy and integrity of the processes and the papers is guaranteed.

If there is no objection, I would insert the rest of the materials relating to the various departments under the Clerk of the House. Mr. FAZIO. We have touched on the recording studio and the property issue, so I will place the remaining material in the record. [The material follows:1

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Our committee reporters' workload last year rose significantly because of the large number of hearings conducted by the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention, briefly, four other of the Clerk's offices: Recording Studio, Office Equipment Service, Office Supply Service, and Property Supply Service. These are all large and very active groups.

The House Recording Studio, which includes the floor television coverage now in its tenth year, had a very significant year in 1987. The Studio served a total of 415 House Members, the third highest total recorded; certain equipment was replaced and the replenishment of the revolving fund continued to allow for planned equipment replacement and expansion. The televised floor coverage included 910 hours and it was available in all 50 states (2,600 cable TV systems with a potential for viewing in 33 million homes). The Studio and its personnel were especially pleased to have managed and directed the remote of the Congressional Ceremonies to honor the Constitutional Bicentennial in Philadelphia last July. The entire crew was composed of Studio personnel and over 100 radio and TV stations, in addition to the CSPAN cable network, received the House's remote transmissions. Commendations are in order for the Studio Director, Mr. William C. Moody, and his staff for their work.

The Office Supply Service's workload, similar to other Clerk's offices, grew in 1987. Total sales were more than $8 million, or a 22 percent increase. The activity in this office was handled by the existing staff, and the General Accounting Office's audit again gave this operation an excellent report.

Property Supply Service's report for 1987 again illustrates the major effort that is undertaken in the beginning of a new Congress. Property Supply shared in the relocation of some 114 Members as moves occurred among the returning incumbent Members. In addition, approximately 50 new Members were installed in their offices in the effort to get everyone settled before the new Congress started.

As an example of Property Supply's activity, I would cite the work of only one department, the Carpet Shop. Approximately 299 offices were recarpeted, there were 1,285 repairs and 706 cleanings. The other shops were equally busy.

The Office Equipment Service's annual report on their duties and workload is more than 60 pages of text, charts and summary tables. This is a major activity to provide and manage the equipment for the House's many offices. The House inventory of Washington-based, purchased equipment is approximately 27,175 items with a value of $49.1 million. In addition, there is an inventory of more than 43,000 units in district offices with a value of $13.7 million.

The biggest impact on Office Equipment Service in 1987 was the acquisition of responsibility for purchased equipment, furniture, carpet, and draperies for approximately 1,100 House district offices. This activity was transferred from GSA to the Clerk by the Committee on House Administration.

The Equipment Service staff under Mr. Robert E. Shea and his Assistant, Ms. Jacqueline D. Byrd, have performed admirably to take over the district program and handle the workload associated with a new Congress.

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will not mention the reports of the Offices of Printing Services, LEGIS, Placement Office, Records and Registration, and the Library. However, I would like to place in the record a more detailed summary of the reports from all of my offices, and leave with you the full text for your review as may be needed.

When I appeared before you last year, the Committee on House Administration had authorized a total of 506 positions for the Clerk's Office, including the House telephone operators. Since then, I proposed the creation of fifteen (15) additional positions. These were fully justified due to increased workload and reorganization of certain offices. Both the Subcommittee on Personnel and the full Committee on House Administration approved these positions. The major portion of them, ten (10) altogether, were required in the Office Equipment Service because of the greatly expanded workload in district office management functions for equipment and the furnishings that I mentioned earlier. Two (2) positions were in the Office of Legislative Operations and three (3) were in the Finance Office.

I am currently reviewing personnel requests from three of my offices that would add seven (7) positions during the coming year, if approved by the Committee. One

84-072 0-88-3

of these positions would be in the Placement Office where increased demands for services dictate that an additional staff person be provided. Two (2) positions would be in the Office of Printing Services, which are now staffed by two persons detailed from the Government Printing Office- Duties of these positions dictate they be employed and managed by the Clerk. And four (4) positions would be created for the Office of Telephone Services. The workload in that office has been relieved through detail of staff from other offices, and these must be returned to the organizations where they are needed. The request for these positions will be fully justified to the Committee on House Administration. These positions would be absorbed within the FY '88 funds and the FY '89 estimates have included approximately enough funds for paying these costs.

This concludes my comments on the Clerk's Office, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions.

FILLING NEWLY CLASSIFIED POSITIONS

Mr. FAZIO. I would like to discuss a staffing matter and then we will go on to the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper and others who have been waiting.

We have a particular problem in that very often House Administration will authorize new positions and immediately those positions are filled, without having funding available. I am particularly anxious to try to get a handle on this problem in its totality. If you could, give us some information in that regard. I don't want to imply that we don't have cooperation from Mr. Panetta and other relevant members of the House Administration Committee. Generally, we do.

But, as you know, the Legislative Branch has been under a great deal of restraint. Due to our reprogramming procedures, we have been able to lift funds from surplus areas to make up for emergencies or unforeseen needs. We will continue to do that, but I think we need to get into the loop a little earlier on these position authorizations.

The Committee on House Administration does advise the officers that they must ensure funds are available before filling these new positions. Chairman Panetta, of the Personnel and Police Subcommittee, does that in each instance. But, of course, there are situations where you cannot wait until the beginning of the fiscal year. Donn, I am going to ask you to institute a procedure whereby in any instance where new positions are authorized during the budget year, that a reprogramming transfer request be prepared for approval by this Committee. Rather than waiting until the end of the year, as is the case now, this procedure will allow the Committee to review the funding situation at a more appropriate time—before the jobs are actually filled.

Do either of you want to comment?