rate. However, when time reporting is imposed, the employee is docked for the time not worked rather than being paid for the time worked. I won't go into the complications now because it would confuse the issue.

STUDY OF MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS

In April of last year the chairman of the Subcommittee on Restaurants of the Committee on Rules and Administration requested us to make a study of management operations in areas of internal control, and to furnish certain information with respect to operations of the Capitol dining rooms during certain hours of the day and for night sessions. I believe that our report, dated October 23, 1964, has been made available to this committee.

Our recommendations concerning physical protection and accounting matters, including the reorganization of the Accounting Office, were immediately accepted by the Architect, and corrective action was taken. The balance of our suggestions concerned policy matters which the staff of the Architect felt should be considered by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The suggestions fall into two categories. First, the employment or contracting for a food controller to carry out a continuing program of food cost studies, staffing requirements, possible variations in services offered within the present designated hours, and so forth. And, second, replacement of the inappropriate pay system with a biweekly pay system, hourly employees being paid on an hourly basis, with time and a half in excess of 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week, and management and clerical employees on a fixed salary.

The chairman of the subcommittee subsequently requested that we develop a specific plan for a revised pay system and furnish the subcommittee with cost estimates to put the restaurant employees on a basis more comparable with employees of similar Government establishments.

As a result of the extended study we determined the additional costs to the restaurant would be about $134,000. This amount would include the recognition of length of service by applying a 5-year-stepincrease system similar to that in effect in the District of Columbia. We developed several alternatives which cost less, but because they do not accomplish the goals which we believe are desirable, we do not recommend that they be considered.

Neither the chairman nor the subcommittee on restaurants has had an opportunity to review our proposals. However, I believe we have furnished all the material and data which they have requested of us.

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

This $134,000 would remove inequities by adopting the principle of equal pay for equal work. A study of this type has never been conducted in the restaurant, and we have some duties which, if standardized, would be equivalent to another person's duties.

The present salaries vary. This would adjust them to an equal level. Pay rates would also start at the $1.25 minimum hourly wage or higher if they are getting it now. No one would be cut.

The program would recognize longevity, improve employee morale, and it would also give an opportunity to apply to the legislative branch

the President's objective to achieve adequate up-to-date and fair-pay systems for all categories of Government personnel.

It would facilitate the adoption of a 40-hour workweek, where you could minimize overtime and eliminate unneeded man-hours, Mr.. Chairman.

I do not know if that gives you a bird's eye picture of our plan, but I do not know since the subcommittee

TOTAL PLAN COST

Senator MONRONEY. This total plan would cost $134,000? Is that correct?

Mr. BRADY. $134,154 a year.

Senator MONRONEY. Every year?

Mr. BRADY. Yes, sir. In addition to what the Architect has: requested.

Senator MONRONEY. You mean, in other words, we would double the deficit?

Mr. BRADY. Yes, sir.

Senator YOUNG. Have you made any calculations as to how much we would have to raise the price of the meals to make up these additional costs?

Mr. BRADY. It is a difficult area, Senator, because you could not increase the price of everything. You would have to center on certain products, certain meals, and this is one of the duties that we think the food comptroller should have.

Senator PROXMIRE. Why couldn't you just make a proportional increase to take care of it? If this is a 20-percent increase in your costs or a 50 percent, make a corresponding increase in the price of meals. Why wouldn't that bring in whatever you need. Your only revenue is from what you charge for meals, is it not?

Mr. BRADY. And the appropriation.

Senator PROXMIRE. And the appropriation.

Senator MONRONEY. We are not supposed to be appropriating. This is always to pick up a deficit, the part-time operation of the cafeterias. Of course, it is hard to make money on a one-meal service, which is the main bulge of income, but it seems like the more we sell the more we go in the hole.

Senator YOUNG. I think that often when the public criticize us they are not justified in doing so. But this is one case where they certainly would be entitled to severely criticize us. If on our salaries and the salaries of our employees, we cannot run a restaurant and pay the restaurant employees a decent salary, we ought to do something about it or let someone else handle the business.

COST OF MEALS

Senator PROXMIRE. I wonder if they can get us an analysis from another standpoint, which would be available, or maybe it would be too much work, but could you compare the cost of a similar meal here and at a commercial establishment outside? You see, we could say we are subsidizing Senators because we have an appropriation to make. I think the chairman is right when he says we cannot compete very well because we are not open for dinner or for breakfast, more

expensive meals. But I think you can argue that the subsidy is really one of convenience to the Nation too so the Senators can do their work better and be available for work, and the staff too. If you can show we are not getting a lower price than we will have to pay if we ate at commercial establishments on the outside. Is there any way that could be done easily or is it too complex?

Mr. BRADY. We can make an attempt at it, at least, Senator.
Senator PROXMIRE. Do you see my point, Mr. Chairman?
Senator MONRONEY. Yes.

Mr. BRADY. Not only that, but the quantity is quite a factor here. I think the portions served here are larger than those normally served -outside.

Senator PROXMIRE. It is a matter of convenience for the public in a sense in that we are more available to them and more available to our work than if we had to go downtown and take an hour and a half for lunch.

Senator YOUNG. The public cannot understand why, with the big salary increase, we cannot pay for the cost of our meals.

FACILITIES FOR THE PUBLIC

Mr. ROOF. You serve the public too. About half of your facilities are given over to the public.

Senator MONRONEY. I think more than that in the public dining

rooms.

Mr. Roor. We had a meal count last year of 1,450,000. You know this would include a large volume of visitors.

Senator YOUNG. Are any of the people at the Capitol complaining about the prices they pay for meals? I have never heard any complaints. It seems to me that they pay less here than they would for comparable food elsewhere.

SUBSIDIZED FOOD OPERATIONS

Mr. GEARY. I would like to make one comment, Senator, on the comparative cost of meals. The standard for judgment of meal prices generally, both outside and commercial operations and in subsidized operations of the various kinds, is the ratio of the food costs to the total sales of food. The food costs of the Senate restaurant for the past fiscal year have been maintained at a very consistent level, and that ratio was comparable to outside commercial operations of the same kind, and is substantially better than the cost ratio of subsidized operations which might be compared with the operation of the Senate restaurant.

Subsidized food operations are very common in industry, particularly where in-plant feeding is provided as a device to keep factory and other personnel in the plant, and to provide a reasonably good meal at a fair price.

FOOD COST RATIOS

Our food cost ratios for this year to date for the overall operations for various months have been 44.1, 46.7, 45, 45.7, and 43.9 percent. Beginning in January, because of the increased volume which always has a beneficial effect on food costs, they have been reduced to 41, 41.6, 42.4, and 43.1 percent.

Now, these figures simply mean that for every dollar that you, as a Senator or any other guest in our restaurant spends, 41 cents of that dollar, or 42 cents, actually is the cost of food which he is served. This is considered a very good cost.

The point I am trying to make is that if we increase the cost of meals what we are, in effect, doing is giving each Senator and each other guest of the restaurant less in food for his dollar. We are already giving him a fair amount of food for his dollar, and any reduction on that food cost would mean that he is actually paying more than he should for food.

Senator YOUNG. Your argument does not impress me one bit. The important thing is that the taxpayer should not have to subsidize the cost of meals for visitors to the Capitol, Members of the Congress, or their employees. If it costs a little more for food or, if the costs run a little higher here than some other place, so what?

Mr. ROOF. Senator, this has always been a subsidized proposition back through the years, you can go back through the history

Senator YOUNG. It will never be subsidized by my vote.

Mr. RooF. You have to lose money as long as you have the operations the way you do now, and geared to the operation of the Senate. You do not have any dinner, any regular dinner, service. You do not serve cocktails, and that is where the restaurant industry makes considerable money.

PROPOSED INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES

Senator YOUNG. Can't you charge a little more per meal?

Mr. Roor. You can charge more, but what will it do to the volume? Senator YOUNG. You would not lose any business. The business will run the same even if prices were increased somewhat.

Mr. ROOF. You can charge a little more, but you remember the last time this was considered, in July 1963, we made the price increase, and we went up at that time on certain items which, I believe, averaged out to about 4 to 5 percent, and we did not lose business as a result of that change, but we estimated it would save only about $30,000.

Senator YOUNG. You have a captive business, so an increase in price will not cause a loss of customers.

Mr. ROOF. There is a limit, we think, to how far you can change it. We feel

Senator YOUNG. Nevertheless, I think that with a $30,000 salary, it is pretty hard to explain on the stump why in addition to that we have to subsidize ourselves, even though the subsidy does not amount to very much; a few extra dollars a month or a year that we would have to pay for our meals are a small price for more respect for the Congress.

INCREASE REQUIRED TO OVERCOME DEFICIT

Senator MONRONEY. What would be the approximate increase in your gross sales per day percentagewise to make up for the $134,000 increase in pay to bring it up to standard?

Mr. Roof. If you want to take it overall, we have roughly $1 million volume. A 10-percent increase would be $100,000, but this is simply a mathematical computation.

Senator MONRONEY. Ten percent would be the increase in the cost of the sales of the food, is that correct? Assuming you had the 10

percent surcharge, that would produce approximately enough to pay for the

Senator PROXMIRE. 13.4 percent would do it. It is 10 percent of $1 million, 13.4 percent would give you $134,000.

Mr. Roof. You are talking about the salary increase?

Senator YOUNG. That is the whole trouble. You are thinking in terms of a necessary subsidy. I do not think we should have to subsidize a Senator for his food.

Mr. Roof. We do not believe that you are, in a sense. We think history has shown that this is a losing proposition, and we do not think anybody can run it without loss regardless of what you charge. If you start charging too much you just are going to drive the business out, and then you will lose more, not less, on this operation.

Senator YOUNG. I cannot see where you would lose business at all. People are not going to complain because they have to pay 30, 40, or even 50 cents more a meal when they are happy to get service.

Mr. ROOF. A Senator might not, but I think your employees will. I do not believe

Senator YOUNG. My staff members are well paid, and I think the rest of them are.

Senator PROXMIRE. I am inclined to have a lot of sympathy, Senator Young. I think from a public relations standpoint, after all everybody in politics has to think of it and has to think about it strongly, the people just cannot understand how we can, without being completely selfish, subsidize ourselves, although I think the chairman and you gentlemen have made an excellent case pointing out that many plants do it, and it is an accepted practice and it is a convenience to the public to have their Senators available.

Senator MONRONEY. Yes, I am talking about the salary increase. Mr. Roor. Senator, you cannot apply a price increase straight across the board. Consider items of coffee, milk, and butter and bread, and the like; we found we could not make applicable a straight across-the-board increase, but we could increase prices on certain items. We could apply the increases on the majority of items.

Mr. GEARY. You cannot use that figure anyhow, Senator, because you increase your sales by $134,000, but this is not all profit. Your food costs you 40 percent of that, so you have to double that figure to come up with a gross profit that will equal $134,000 or are you saying that the food would cost the same, that this is just a completely gratuitous increase in revenue?

Senator PROXMIRE. There is no reason why the food would cost

any more.

Mr. GEARY. In other words, you are assuming the food would be the same and you would add $134,000 in your revenue to offset this pay raise.

ACROSS-THE-BOARD INCREASE

Senator MONRONEY. All right. I am not advocating a surcharge on the food, but just a 10-percent across-the-board increase in your percentage of the costs of the food to the sales price which would then go down by a percentage.

Mr. GEARY. Yes, that is correct. If the food cost remains the same and the selling price is increased the ratio of food cost to sales would be reduced.