ADP SYSTEMS

What

Question: You note a problem with the Bureaus' developing new systems without reference to existing systems or joint efforts. steps are being taken to prevent duplication of these systems?

Answer: The two new positions budgeted are to be added to the staff of the Division of ADP Management. Their function will be to prevent duplication of development efforts by addressing those activities which offer the greatest potential for common effort: data base and software development. One position is targeted as a data administrator. This individual will assume responsibility for implementation of a Departmental data dictionary and compatible data base management systems. The other position is designed to provide the Department with a coordinator to encourage, monitor and provide leadership for joint systems development efforts among the bureaus. With the present level of staffing, these functions are not being performed.

Question: Total expenditures for ADP have increased by $27 million in the past two years. What are your projected costs for the next five years?

below.

Answer: The projected costs for the next five years are shown

Question: Have you developed an ADP sharing plan with other agencies? What is the feasibility of such a plan?

Answer: Sharing agreements between bureaus have been encouraged and, indeed, have been most useful. Bureau level agreements are appropriate due to the basic technical problems of coordinating disparate systems and accommodating unique organizational needs.

In addition to participating in the GSA ADP Sharing Exchange Program, joint efforts or use of other organizations' capabilities in hardware, software, application development and data sharing have been accomplished. The Department of Commerce (Bureau of the Census, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); the Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service and the Department-operated computer centers); Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Energy; National Institutes of Health; Western Area Power Administration; Department of Labor; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the Defense Mapping Agency are examples of current sharing agreements. In addition to these, the Interior Department bureaus are the primary users of the Alaskan Federal Data Processing Center managed by GSA.

Working Capital Fund

Question: Last year the Congress transferred certain functions from the Working Capital Fund to the Departmental Management Account. What has been the effect of that transfer?

Answer: All activities transferred by the Committees will remain under the Departmental Management Account. As a result of the Committee's concern, two additional activities, Law Enforcement Policy and MBE Procurement Policy, are proposed by the Department to be funded under Departmental Management rather than the WCF in FY 1980. Other initiatives taken by the Office of the Secretary include issuance of WCF Handbook, establishment of WCF Advisory Committee and specific delegations of authority from the Assistant Secretary Policy, Budget and Administration to the Chief of Fiscal Services for day-to-day management and oversight of the WCF. The change in the funding source of these programs has had no ill effect. Decreased levels of funding, while causing some reductions in program levels, have been absorbed with the exception of Telecommunications Management. Due to a number of circumstances, a reprogramming request to recoup some of the reduction may be forthcoming by the Department.

Question: Why is there an unobligated balance of $5.5 million?

Answer: The unobligated balance is an unadjusted variance representing the difference between income and estimated cost of goods sold. The variance is to be adjusted annually.

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

STATEMENT OF LEO M. KRULITZ, SOLICITOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

ACCOMPANIED BY:

FREDERICK N. FERGUSON, DEPUTY SOLICITOR

JOHN E. MERRELL, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

WILLIAM D. BETTENBERG, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

JAMES D. WEBB, ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR, CONSERVATION AND WILDLIFE

JOHN D. LESHY, ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR, ENERGY AND RESOURCES ALEXIS C. JACKSON, ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR, GENERAL LAW THOMAS W. FREDERICKS, ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR, INDIAN AFFAIRS WILLIAM M. EICHBAUM, ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR, SURFACE MINING

OPENING REMARKS

Senator STEVENS. We've got your Office of the Solicitor 1980 budget request for $15.6 million, $1 million over 1979. You have no increases in positions. The budget justification has been printed in the record. Will you tell us who is with you, please?

Mr. KRULITZ. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to introduce the people that I have with me today. Starting at the far end of the table I have John Leshy, Associate Solicitor for Energy and Resources; William Eichbaum, Associate Solicitor for Surface Mining; Thomas Fredericks, Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs; Frederick Ferguson, my Deputy Solicitor; John Merrell, my Administrative Officer; Alexis Jackson, Associate Solicitor for General Law; and James Webb, Associate Solicitor for Conservation and Wildlife. Senator STEVENS. Is that a new one, General Law?

Mr. KRULITZ. There's been a Division of General Law for many years, in the Solicitor's Office. Alexis Jackson has been appointed in the past year since our last appearance before this committee. Senator STEVENS. Nice to see you. My memory was that all the associate solicitors were associated with the various bureaus and offices. What is the area for General Law Associate Solicitor? What's your function there?

Ms. JACKSON. We primarily service the Office of the Secretary with emphasis in policy, budget, and administration and also territorial affairs.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator STEVENS. I see. Very good. Thank you.

Do you want to highlight your statement, Mr. Krulitz?

Mr. KRULITZ. Yes. I would request that the full statement be included in the record and I will just highlight it.

Senator STEVENS. Yes, it will be included.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF LEO M. KRULITZ

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with you today the fiscal year 1980 budget request for the Interior Solicitor's Office.

I have submitted the detailed budget justification to the Subcommittee. In my statement today, I will only briefly describe several major features of that request, then try to answer any questions you may have.

We are requesting $15,619,000, which is $511,000 more than the 1980 base appropriation.

I am pleased to report to the committee that our request represents an increase of something less than 3.5 percent and includes no additional permanent positions in the Solicitor's Office. We are, however, requesting a very modest budget increase to provide tools which will increase the efficiency and productivity of the employees we do have.

I would like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, the inelasticity of our budget request. As you will see, $213,000--over 40 percent of the increase--would be consumed in personnel compensation and benefits, mostly in increases for employees performing satisfactorily, or better, over a specified period.

The remainder of the increase over last year's budget total would go for three items:

1.

2.

$108,000 to finance word processing equipment;

$50,000 to finance microfilm processing;

3. $140,000 to contract for outside professional
patent services.

Let me briefly describe these items and why I believe they will more than pay for themselves.

First, we propose expanded use of word processing equipment. As you know, legal briefs, opinions and regulations ordinarily undergo many changes en route to final form. During the past year, we have begun using leased word processing equipment in several of our headquarters offices. This equipment has enabled secretaries to revise or correct, often extensively, without manual retyping. We have found increases in speed, accuracy and flexibility and we would like now to extend those advantages to our major field offices.

Our experience with the equipment to date has also shown us that it can contribute to something which has concerned me for some time: accurate productivity measurements in the Solicitor's Office.

The memory ability of this equipment will help us keep a much more thorough and accurate record of workloads, time spent in a variety of functions and delinquencies.

The request for $50,000 for microfilm processing, Mr. Chairman, is simply to find a way to store a growing volume of documents in a fixed--or, in our case, shrinking--space.

Under a pilot program, our Atlanta office has used microfilm to store title opinions and large correspondence files in its work for the National Park Service on land acquisition for the Big Cypress National Preserve. program has shown us that microfilm is an efficient, economical way of storing such data and retrieving it quickly.

The Atlanta

1

The Docket and Records Section here in Washington is losing about 700 square feet of space due to relocation and we think a move to microfilm will offset that loss and provide ather benefits in efficiency and better access to a wide range of materials now available on microfilm (such as law reviews, the Federal Register, the Congressional Record). Finally, we have increased demands for library space for documents generated by the creation of the Interior Appeals Boards in the Denver Regional Solicitor's Office. Microfilm readers and printers will relieve space demands and help us reduce copying and mailing costs.

The last item, contracting for outside professional patent services, requires some background explanation, Mr. Chairman.

The Department's research and development activities involve the knowledge and work of 12,000 scientists and engineers. Each of these is a potential inventor. The number of invention reports each year, while substantial, does not reflect the inventions development we would expect from so large a group.

In the present fiscal year, we have made a major effort to find out why, sending the Department's patent counsel to various R & D facilities. These visits proved highly effective. Our attorneys were deluged with questions about policy, procedures, employee and government rights. In many cases, R & D personnel were surprised to learn that patent counsel were available to them within the Department to advise them about patents and so-called "intellectual property rights."

The Branch of Patents, part of the Division of General Law in my office, is charged with matters involving these intellectual property rights, including processing invention disclosures submitted by Department employees and contractors. Without the benefit of a contractor program, though, the loss of Government rights in valuable inventions will be unavoidable.

Professional patent services possess the wide range of technical skills and knowledge which we could not--and should not--duplicate in the Branch of Patents. In addition, professional services are close to and familiar with the Patent and Trademark Office, can promptly and reliably search files and patents, and provide related services and information.

We expect to continue doing some of this work as time and expertise in the Branch of Patents warrant. But based on the effectiveness, work product, and time and money saved, we think it also warranted to contract for some of this work to protect valuable patent rights and to get new and improved technology to the public as economically and promptly as possible.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to expand a bit on something I mentioned earlier--the matter of productivity measurement in my office.

In the past, such measurements consisted of counting the number of legal items completed and the number of items pending during a given period. I think we are all agreed that these measurements were essentially valueless as a means of measuring the productivity of our legal staff.