Page images
PDF
EPUB

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.

[ocr errors]

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 0 - 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 catego ries, 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:)

Capitol Police-History of Overtime Expenses, January 1976 through January

1979 January, 1976..... ...............

........

$114,791 April, 1976....

150,044 July, 1976.

230,533 September, 1976..

254,031 January, 1977.........

63,297 April, 1977................

175,902 July, 1977........

171,218 September, 1977.

174,759 January, 1978.

171,220 April, 1910........................................................................ April, 1978..

388,070 July, 1978......

268,193 October, 1978....

433,392 January, 1979......

93,736 Total ..

2,689,186

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

.

[ocr errors]

..............................................................................................................

.....

...

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

..

[ocr errors]

..

.

..

.

..

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Office of the Doorkeeper-History of Publications Distribution Overtime, January

1976 Through January 1979 January, 1976.. ..........

$3.005 April, 1976.

5,666 May, 1976

5,604 July, 1976..

2,755 September, 1976..

16,116 October, 1976...

11,156 January, 1978.....

18,400 March, 1978 ....

2,996 April, 1978..

29,123 May, 1978.

11,959 June, 1978

2,808 August, 1978.

3,713 September, 1978..............

40,200 Total ..

153,501 Mr. HENSHAW. I had no overtime pay in the Clerk's Office. We are going to run through the Clerk's operation and then get the individual offices, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Doorkeeper. This would summarize the overtime of the Capitol Police and the Doorkeeper. I would be delighted to yield to them if you have a question for them at this time.

Mr. RUDD. I think we can handle this the way the chairman has suggested. That will do the job. I have no other questions.

.....

FISCAL YEAR 1980 INCREASE AFTER CONSIDERING SECTION 311

(P.L. 95-391) Mr. BENJAMIN. Thank you. I have two questions.

One, in your opening statement you indicate that the increase is $26.4 million. Then you further qualify that by saying the increase over the current fiscal year is not quite as high as it first appears. I recall that your predecessor used this phraseology too, by first adding the supplementals and then taking the difference after you add the supplementals and saying it is not quite as high.

My specific question here is this: Is the differential based on what you were appropriated in fiscal year 1979, or is it after section 311 of the Act was applied to your appropriation?

Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, sir. To answer your question, that is before 311, before a reduction of that amount.

Mr. BENJAMIN. In other words, you took what the actual dollar appropriation was, added the supplemental, and then subtracted that from the fiscal year 1980 request. After that calculation, you then say the increase is minimal, only $26 million. However, if I understand your statement, or at least perhaps a previous issue of your statement, you indicated under 311 you not only saved 5 percent, you saved 6 percent. Shouldn't that, then be the level that we are really going from, whether you include or don't include the supplementals, in attempting to really distinguish the difference between the 1979 appropriation and the 1980 request?

Mr. HENSHAW. The 1979 appropriation we treat as a separate unit because it is an estimate, not knowing what we are going to end up with.

Mr. BENJAMIN. You do have the 1979 actual?
Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, sir, to date.

Mr. BENJAMIN. So that gives you some idea if you look back at the history and workings of your office.

Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, and the estimates we make on that basis, looking at the first quarter expenditures, it appears now that there is going to be a 6 percent savings. I pick that up here in just a few minutes in my testimony, to try to explain how we do that.

Mr. BENJAMIN. But even if you don't consider the 6 percent, you still have to contend with section 311, the 5 percent withholding. You are not going to exceed that unless this committee and the Congress gives you permission to do so.

Mr. HENSHAW. Yes, sir.

Mr. BENJAMIN. So consequently, when you start talking differences, isn't your increase really based on the level of spending, the maximum level of spending that you have in fiscal year 1979, instead of the 1979 appropriation, to give us an idea of what we are increasing?

Mr. HENSHAW. We are looking at the total figure for fiscal 1979.
Mr. BENJAMIN. You said you were?
Mr. HENSHAW. Yes.

Mr. BENJAMIN. If we took the 5 percent off the 1979 figure, then the difference between 1979 and 1980 would be greater than you actually give us here. I would ask for the record that you actually distinguish, one, the difference between 1979 and 1980 after apply. ing 311, and then give us a second table indicating the 1979 minus the 5 percent cut plus supplementals, and then show us the difference.

Mr. LAWLER. We can prepare that chart for the record. Mr. BENJAMIN. It may be a question of semantics for some, but obviously we are talking about a great number of dollars here and we ought to be able to analyze it properly.

[The information follows:]

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

House Leadership Offices
Office of the Speaker
Office of the Majority Floor Leader
Office of the Minority Floor Leader
Office of the Majority Whip
Office of the Minority Whip
Total, House Leadership Offices

Salaries, Officers and Employees
Office of the Clerk
Office of the Sergeant at Arms
office of the Doorkeeper
Office of the Postmaster
Office of the Chaplain
Office of the Parliamentarian
Compilation of precedents of the House

of Representatives
Technical assistant, Office of the

Attending Physician
House Democratic Steering Committee
House Democratic Caucus
House Republican Conference
Sis minority employees
L.B.J. Interns and former Speakers'

Staff
Total, salaries, officers and
eaployees

[blocks in formation]

Committee Eaployees Professional and clerical employees

(standing comaittees)

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »