SUBCOMMITTEE PRINT FORMAT

Mr. HENSHAW. We are endeavoring, at the suggestion of your subcommittee staff, to produce a single source of budget language, spending histories, amounts requested, and legislative authorities. We believe you will find this year's Subcommittee Print to be your primary reference book.

As we discuss each line item and subcategory, you will find the corresponding Subcommittee Print page numbers. As in the past, a schedule of our estimates and the appropriate amounts for up to 10 prior years follows the proposed language of the present bill in the Subcommittee Print. The Subcommittee Print also contains the fiscal year 1978, fiscal year 1979 and fiscal year 1980 estimates. From time to time, I will refer to the Subcommittee Print for annualized expenditure levels and other statistical information.

SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST

We are requesting additional amounts to cover both the 5.5 percent pay raise granted last October for fiscal year 1979 and a program increase for the education of pages. The supplemental was requested by the Deputy Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools, a figure of some $27,600, to cover the cost of an additional teaching position, increased costs in health benefits, textbooks and educational supplies. The pay increase for House employees was the same as the one approved for all Federal employees.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Before proceeding with the supplemental, let me determine if Mr. Rudd has any questions on your opening state

ment.

ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING RAISE

Mr. RUDD. I only have a couple of questions that I would like to ask about the overall picture.

One has to do with the personnel paid. Do you pro-rate the annual cost-of-living raises that are authorized, which I think amounted to 5.5 percent last year? If an employee comes on, say, in June and their raise comes up in October or November, do you prorate it instead of a full year increase, to reflect the amount of time the individual has worked, or do you just put the raise in the way it is? Or do you think that is a good idea?

Mr. HENSHAW. This is up to the individual offices and Members as to how they want to handle that, once they get the authorization for the pay increase. Of course they have to indicate to us that they want these pay increases granted.

Mr. RUDD. What about your employees?

Mr. HENSHAW. My employees? Yes, sir, we gave them the pay increase, pro-rated, of course, as we go through the year.

Mr. RUDD. How do you pro-rate it?

Mr. HENSHAW. At the regular monthly increment. We increase it each month, the same as the Members. This is our guideline, our policy, to proceed the same as the Members, with the increase month by month.

TELEVISED PROCEEDINGS-RECOVERY OF COST

Mr. RUDD. With regard to the Recording Studio, what we are setting up? What arrangements are made to obtain reimbursements for costs in this area from the private sector, or from radio and television stations that might want to use this facility or make inquiries on their own?

Mr. HENSHAW. Do you mean the Recording Studio or do you mean the televising of the proceedings that we are just starting? Mr. RUDD. Whoever is going to use the televised results.

Mr. HENSHAW. Of the proceedings in the House Chamber?
Mr. RUDD. Yes.

Mr. HENSHAW. The gavel to gavel, the new proceedings?
Mr. RUDD. Yes.

Mr. HENSHAW. I don't have Bill Hartnett with me. There is a schedule on what we will charge for tapes. I will be glad to submit that for the record. It is something we have just finalized working with Congressman Charlie Rose. There is a cost, but I can't give you the exact figure. I can supply information on our proposal. [The information follows:]

My office has recently submitted suggested rates for the duplication of audio and video tapes to the Speaker's Advisory Committee on Broadcasting. It is our goal, and that of the Committee, to develop a rate schedule for tape duplication that will cover the costs of equipment, personnel, supplies and general overhead. As of this date, the Advisory Committee has not yet released the final rates for these services.

RECORDING STUDIO EMPLOYEE REQUEST

Mr. RUDD. You have indicated in this regard that 12 additional positions for the Recording Studio have been put in primarily for broadcast coverage of proceedings.

Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, sir.

Mr. RUDD. There must be some measure being taken to try to recover some of the costs perhaps in that way.

Mr. HENSHAW. May I let the deputy clerk give a couple of comments?

AUDIO/TV TAPE-PURCHASE PRICE

Mr. COLLEY. Mr. Rudd, the table of charges for purchasing, in effect, a radio tape or a video tape of the floor proceedings has been proposed, based on what we see as the costs involved to the House. That has been submitted to the Advisory Committee to the Speaker who has been generally in charge of this whole project. In other words, if you or the chairman should purchase a tape, you would pay a charge for that.

As far as I personally know, there will be no charge made to the media for a direct pickup from the floor at the time it is taking place. If they bought a tape tomorrow of what is happening today, then yes, they would pay the charge. This schedule of charges is similar to the schedule of charges we have in the House recording studio for any Member making a television tape. We have not received the final approval of the proposed charges. We would be happy to provide it for the record, if you would like.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Will you be kind enough to yield for a minute? Mr. RUDD. Certainly.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Let me continue with this. On the audio portion which was in effect as of the beginning of the second session of the 95th Congress, has there been any charge to the broadcast media for that?

Mr. COLLEY. Not as far as I know.

Mr. HENSHAW. Not to my knowledge, either.

Mr. COLLEY. It was an experimental activity.

Mr. BENJAMIN. What was our capital outlay for just the audio coverage of the House proceedings?

Mr. COLLEY. I don't think I can give you a figure but I will endeavor to obtain it.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you supply that for the record?

[The information follows:]

The audio coverage of the House proceedings which was initiated during the Second Session of the 95th Congress was provided by the Architect of the Capitol by a single line feed off the PA system to the radio and TV press gallery in the Capitol. The Architect's office advises that because audio distribution is a relatively simple function, there were no major costs involved. They used existing personnel and supplies to provide this service.

MEMBERS' PURCHASE OF AUDIO TAPE

Mr. BENJAMIN. Has there been a procedure enacted that would allow Members to buy their audio portion, or any audio portion, whether it is theirs or anyone else's?

Mr. COLLEY. Yes. We have worked out the schedule of proposed charges, and submitted it for approval.

Mr. HENSHAW. Also, audio.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Apparently there was no charge in 1978; is that correct?

Mr. COLLEY. That is correct. However, no audio tapes were made available.

Mr. HENSHAW. If I could interject just a minute, Mr. Chairman, audio was handled by the Architect, as stated. I think it would be public information, because the signal was available.

To back up just a minute to Mr. Rudd, I think your question was if a member wanted to buy one of his tapes?

Mr. RUDD. No.

Mr. HENSHAW. The media?

Mr. RUDD. That is right. I want to know whether there are any plans to charge the media for anything that they want to get, and the things that they are going to get anyway. There is no way we can charge them for what they pick up.

Mr. HENSHAW. No, sir.

Mr. RUDD. What arrangements have you made for that?

Mr. HENSHAW. There are plans for a charge on tapes, and I will supply the committee with that information.

AUDIO SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS

Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you supply for the record, and I realize that some of it may be within the purview of the Architect, but if you will gather it and put it in one spot in the record, one, the capital costs of establishing the audio system in 1978, and whether there was any charge to the broadcast media, or any charge to any Member who obtained part of that audio.

The second thing, for the audio and video, which is now going into effect, again provide us the projected cost, including the capital outlay, which would include the positions you are asking for here, and then what proposed charges to the broadcast media and, secondly, to members. Apparently the charge will be based on a schedule which you say is proposed. We would like to know if that has been finalized, and, frankly, how much of the cost they intend to recover on this.

Mr. HENSHAW. All right, sir.

[The information follows:]

As of March 1, 1979, my office has experienced or will obligate $1,478,000 for procurement of equipment and personnel services directly related to the implementation of a broadcasting system for the coverage of the House proceedings. In addition, the Clerk of the House has taken possession of three complete TV camera systems from the Architect at a value of approximately $420,000, bringing the total to a six camera system.

As far as recovering costs expended through tape duplication, that is difficult to estimate. The income will vary with the volume or frequency of duplication requests. In essence, the greater the demand for tape duplication, the more cost recovery we will realize. As covered earlier, the rates charged are aimed to offset the costs of equipment, personnel, supplies and overhead.

Mr. RUDD. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think that nails that down. I have one more question.

Mr. BENJAMIN. You go right ahead.

OFFICE FURNISHINGS-REPLACEMENT PERIOD

Mr. RUDD. This has to do with the policy of frequency of painting, drapery replacement, new carpeting in the congressional and committee offices.

Is there a minimum time required between changes, and what are the ways in which we could economize on the $2 million outlay that you have listed, page 45?

Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, sir. Let me answer that this way: painting of rooms is under the Architect of the Capitol. It is my understanding that every 2 years, depending on the shape of the offices, that request can be made and complied with by the Architect, through the Building Superintendent. The carpet and drapes are under the Clerk of the House. We have a replacement policy of normally every 4 years.

Mr. COLLEY. Four to five years, depending on wear and tear, basically.

Mr. HENSHAW. That depends on the wear and tear. Some offices take terrible abuse, you know, at different times of the year. Mr. RUDD. I shouldn't have included painting.

Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, sir.

Mr. RUDD. But I was talking really about supplies listed under the $2 million outlay here for furniture, equipment, new carpeting, drapery materials, cleaning, supplies, all of these kinds of materials. Normally it is at the end of each term?

Mr. HENSHAW. Four years. Normally we try to make it last that long but sometimes we have to make exceptions.

Mr. RUDD. Two terms.

Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, sir. This is a judgment factor. Sometimes we find we just have to do it. The carpets in some offices are in shreds, and we have to replace them.

35-533 - 79 10 (Pt. 2)

[Discussion off the record.]

OVERTIME COSTS

Mr. BENJAMIN. Back on the record.

Mr. RUDD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

I have one question concerning overtime that probably should be directed to Chief Powell, but perhaps if I could just start the ball rolling here. Mr. Henshaw may be able to provide part of the

answer.

How much compensation for overtime is required for the police, the Sergeant at Arms, the Office of the Doorkeeper, for Publication and Distribution Services, listed on pages 16 and 21? Would you be kind enough to outline this for the committee? Part of that, I am sure, would have to come from Chief Powell.

In addition to the amount of overtime required in these categories, the cost, could you give us a general description of what circumstances required that overtime? You might make a recommendation to how these overtime expenses could be reduced. I know that this is a difficult area because much of it depends on how long the House is in session and what the work of the House is.

Mr. HENSHAW. Could I respond to that, Mr. Rudd?

Mr. RUDD. Certainly.

Mr. HENSHAW. I feel that I can't give you all the answers that you are after right at this particular time in those areas. The Sergeant at Arms is here, and I would like to defer to him.

I have a list of the expenditures for overtime, January 1975 through January 1979, but I don't know that I can give you all of the answers that I think you are seeking. It depends on, you know, how many marches we had and how many events of that nature for which we needed overtime. I would like to defer to the Sergeant at Arms to give you an answer a little later.

Mr. RUDD. I am just wondering. There is probably no problem in this area. But couldn't there be a coordinated effort to get the answers to those questions for the record.

Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, sir, I think those are planned for detailed answers for the record, if I might ask the Sergeant at Arms, and Doorkeeper also.

Mr. MOLLOY. Yes, we have that.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I would like to get it in one spot again. You are going to have an element of overtime. Mr. Molloy, you will have it with the Doorkeeper operation, and Mr. Harding, you will have it particularly with the police. We will take it individually, but I would still like to have a table for the record, indicating the overtime and the statement of justification for the overtime. I share Mr. Rudd's concern about the increasing number of hours and pay of overtime.

Mr. RUDD. I think that that is a good approach.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that if we had it in one place, we could take a look at it without thumbing through a number of pages and trying to pick it out.

[The information follows:]