Page images


Mr. BRENKWORTH. Full committee employees—the total cost of the pay bill is $154,936; the supplemental request, $116,202. The revision in the estimate for full-year cost is $38,734; the appropriation request for 1969, $3,640,996.


On the conference committees, we have two. One is the conference of the majority and the other is the conference of the minority, both of which are the same. The full-year cost of the pay bill, $4,592; the budget revision, $1,148; the new appropriation would be $107,912 for each of these conference committees.

You have two line items on your chart, Senators.


We now come to the portion for administrative and clerical assistance to Senators. The appropriation, including the supplemental request for the pay bill, would bring us to an appropriation for 1968 of $20,933,140. The revision, $346,580, broken down as follows:

The amount of the full-year modification of the floor amendment, $80,060; $40,140 to provide the funds necessary to pay for the increased allowance due to population increase for the Senators from Indiana and New Jersey. The full-year revision of the pay bill of $226,380; total increase $346,580.

The 1969 estimate, $21,279,720.

Senator Cotton. Those two States moved from the middle group into the top group?

Mr. BRENKWORTH. No, sir. The State of Indiana went from the 4 million group to the 5 and 6 million group. The State of New Jersey went from the 5 and 6 million group to the 7 and 8 million group.

This was authorized and placed into effect.
Senator COTTON. How many groups are there?

Mr. BRENKWORTH. We presently have 12 groups. Of those 12 groups, we have Senators in all but four. You are actively using at this time eight of the 12 groups.

Senator BARTLETT. What are the four that are not being used ?

Mr. BRENKWORTH. We have no States in the 9 million area. We have no States in the 12 through 16 million area.

Senator COTTON. I did not realize there were so many groups.


Mr. BRENKWORTH. The office of the Sergeant at Arms—the increase is attributable to the Pay Act again. The full-year cost, $172,258; the full-year revision, $43,064, to a 1969 estimate of $4,050,768.


The next item is the office of the secretaries for the majority and minority. The Pay Act is involved here also. The full-year cost of $7,575. The estimate increase, $1,894, to a. 1969 estimate of $180,480.


For the offices of the majority and minority whips, the increased pay costs, full year, $1,696; the estimate revision, $424; 1969 estimate, $39,856.

Senator Barrier. This is simply a matter of following the law; is it not?

Mr. BRENKwoRTH. Yes, sir; funds necessary to carry out the pay increases provided by Public Law 90–206.


In the office of the Legislative Counsel, total increase for the year under the Pay Act was $14,605. The full-year revision, $3,650, to a new appropriation of $342,180.


The next items are under the heading “Contingent Expenses” of the Senate, the majority and minority policy committees, and this is based on the payroll of the minority policy committee which is, of course, the higher of the two, and they are equally distributed. Each of the committees receives the same amount, but we have to gear it to the one of the two which is using the higher amount of money. Senator CoTTON. You mean the minority have less employees and you pay them more? Mr. BRENKwoRTH. No, the minority policy committee has more employees and is using more of their allocation than the majority and this is obviously due to the fact that they are in the minority. Senator CoTTON. We need policy workers? Mr. BRENKwoRTH. It is not a matter of politics, but it is traditional that when a party is in the minority, they will have a greater expenditure from this particular appropriation. Senator CoTTON. I do not understand, but thank you. Mr. BRENKwoRTH. The full-year increase, $17,650 for both committees; $8,825 for each. The full-year revision, $2,205 each; total, $4,410. The appropriation, $440,300, which is divided, $220,150 for each of the policy committees.


We have two items of increase here. The first is the request by Senator Hayden for an increase in the appropriation of $2,400 to provide for the funds necessary for the longevity application. The second is the Pay Act which increased each of these by $400. The full-year revision or estimate increase is $100 for the four officers involved, a total of $400 when added to the $2,400, an estimate increase of $2,800 to a new appro£ of $48,700 which will provide $12,175 for each of the '. or operating and maintaining each of these vehicles. Senator CoTTON. How many vehicles are furnished to the various people in the Senate and how many have chauffeurs? Mr. BRENKworTH. We have four chauffeurs and those four are in this "' area which deal solely with the four officers of the Senate: he Vice President, the President pro tempore, the majority leader and the minority leader. That is all that is in this and we have four chauffeurs here, one for each of these cars.


Senator COTTON. But there are other cars? Mr. BRENKwoRTH. There are other cars under mail transportation. Senator BARTLETT. Who gets those cars? Mr. BRENKwoRTH. The vehicles are furnished to the Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms, the secretaries of the majority and minority, one assigned to my office, and there are a number of vehicles for the post office including some trucks, I believe, to carry the mail. £ator BARTLETT. Does the Congress furnish a car for the Architect? Mr. BRENKwoRTH. I am not familiar with the architect's appropriations. (Clerks note: The appropriation “Capitol Buildings,” under the Architect of the Capitol finances an automobile for the office of Architect of the Capitol.) Senator BARTLETT. How about the Chaplain? Mr. BRENKwoRTH. He does not have a vehicle; no sir. That would be a Senate item and he does not.


Senator BARTLETT. How about the Capitol Physician? Mr. BRENKwoRTH. I believe he does, Senator. Senator CoTTON. Do the whips have them? Mr. BRENKwoRTH. No, sir, they do not. Senator CoTTON. The cars furnished are not under any one tent. In other words, some of them are furnished out of other appropriations such as you just mentioned, such as the Capitol Architect? Mr. BRENKwoRTH. Yes, sir, that would be financed out of his office which is not a Senate item at all. I do not know whether that would be under a joint item or the Architect's item. I think the Capitol Physician may be under one of his appropriations and the House w'i be under one of their appropriations.


Senator CoTTON. As far as the Senate is concerned, only four fulltime chauffeurs are employed? Mr. BRENKwoRTH. As far as I know, Senator, at this time, those are the only chauffeurs which are employed. Senator BARTLETT. Do you happen to know what is their starting salary? '' BRENKwoRTH. I think I can find that for you, Senator, if you give me a minute. Senator BARTLETT. Why don't you just put it in the record? Mr. BRENKworTH. This will be their current salary. Senator BARTLETT. That is just as good. Mr. BRENKwoRTH. The figure that we are working to presently, and this includes the increase provided by the recent pay increase, $8,648 per annum.


... The next appropriation is for furniture. There is no change in that item. Senator CoTTON. Would you excuse me for a minute. You mentioned furniture. The furniture in Senators offices back in their respective States is furnished by the General Services Administration, is it not? Mr. BRENKwoRTH.I believe so. I am not too familiar with that. This furniture item is specifically for furniture in the Capitol itself, in furnishing offices in the Capitol. Senator BARTLETT. Not in the Senate Office Building? Mr. BRENkworth. No, I believe that comes under the Capitol Architect's Office through the Superintendent of the Senate Buildings, and this is specifically for the Senate wing of the Capitol. Senator CoTTON. The Capitol is referred to here. The Senators' offices in the Senate Office Building come under the Architect and back home they come from the General Services Administration. Mr. BRENKwoRTH. I presume that is the way it works. Senator CoTTON. I know in my case because they just built a Federal building and previously I had to maintain an office in a private building. I know that the furniture came from that source. Now, how about the committee rooms not in the Capitol but in the Senate Office Buildings? * * Mr. BRENkworth. I presume the furnishings there also are obtained through the superintendent of the building. * Mr. SCOTT. That is correct.


Senator COTTON. It would be hard for the £ to follow through and get an a te sum of what was spent on furniture. £ # not be too difficult as far as the Capitol itself and the Senate Office Buildings. Senator CoTTON. I have no particular doubts about it but I was curious. It seemed to me that somewhere the figures should be available. Senator BARTLETT. Maybe Mr. Scott will ask Mr. Stewart to supply that for the record. Mr. Scott. Yes, sir; I will get those figures. Senator CoTTON. And just a little memorandum to show where the furniture for the functions of the Senators' offices back in the State. the committee offices here, the Senators offices and any distinction there between those in the Capitol and those in the Senate Office Buildings just so we have a picture of it. Mr. Scott. I will get such a statement, Senator. (The statement follows:)


1. Amount in budget estimate for fiscal year 1969 for furniture to be purchased by the Senate through the Sergeant at Arms----------- $31, 190

2. Amount in budget estimate for fiscal year 1969 for the purchase of furniture by the Architect of the Capitol for use by the Senate----- 56,000

Total furniture cost------------------------------------------ 7. 190

Furniture for the Senate Wing of the Capitol is purchased by the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate from the appropriation designated as Item I in the table

above. This includes Senator's offices in the Capitol. Committee rooms in the Capitol, the Senate Chamber, and other offices in the Senate Wing of the Capitol.

Furniture for the Committees and Senators' offices in the two Senate Office Buildings is furnished through the Superintendent of Buildings from the appropriation designated as Item 2 in the table above.

Furniture for Senators' offices in their home states are not financed from the furniture appropriation to the Sergeant at Arms nor the appropriations to the Architect. Such furniture is either included in the rent when commercial space is rented or is furnished through the General Services Administration.


May 15, 1968.
To: Mr. Tom Scott, Chief Clerk, Appropriations Committee.
From: J. Lewey Caraway.

In our budget for fiscal year 1969, we have the following items for furniture and furnishings : Rugs and floor coverings-

$35,000 Furniture and furnishings: Typewriter stands and tables, filing stools and other miscellaneous items.

5, 000 Revolving arm chairs.--

3, 650 Typist chairs -

1, 350 Filing cabinets...

5, 000 Desks, typewriter and executive....

6, 000


56, 000 These items are for use in both the New and the Old Senate Office Buildings, for all Senators, Committees and others who have offices in the buildings.

The Superintendent of the Senate Office Buildings does not furnish furniture for use in the U.S. Capitol building, nor do we furnish any furniture for Senators offices in their home states.

J. LEWEY CARAWAY. Superintendent, Senate Office Buildings.


Mr. BRENKWORTH. The next item is "Inquiries and investigations." The full cost of the Pay Act, $233,320; the 1969 estimate revision, $58,330. The 1969 estimate, $5,856,585.' The authorizations by the Senate for the second session total $6,450,400. The authorizations for the first session were $6,270,900. We have an increase here of $179,500 in authorization.

This appropriation is not fully funded, as you can see. It is based more on the rate of expenditure of these committees than on the total authorization.


The next item is "Folding documents," and in this area we had a deficiency appropriation for 1968 of $8,000 which was a 1-year deficiency and there is a reduction of that amount in the 1969 estimate. The Pay Act was applicable to these people in that it raised the hourly rate which could be paid them subject to authorization by the Sergeant at Arms. The total cost of the pay bill, $1,890. The full-year revision, $785, with a net decrease of $7.215. The estimate for 1969 is $43,790.

Senator COTTON. Do you remember why it was thought we could drop back in 1969?

Mr. BRENKWORTH. The reason the estimate is submitted at that rate is it was my understanding that the appropriation was a defi

« PreviousContinue »