might have some suggestions. I will be glad to lay the matter before them. Mr. ANDREWS of North Dakota. I think this will be welcomed very much by the tourist. I think the taxpayer would be a lot better off to have some simple above-ground facilities provided in the area where we are engaging in urban renewal development anyway. WEST FRONT PROJECT CONTINUED Now, on this west front, as I understand it, if you do in fact extend the west front as you did the east front and make an interior wall out of the now exterior sandstone wall, this old sandstone wall then is an interior partition and it is structurally sound and engineeringly will bear the load without damage? Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir, but some underpinning will be done. Mr. STEWART. Each and every floor slab in the new structure will act as a lateral buttress against the old wall itself. Mr. ANDREWS of North Dakota. This is really the reason to go to the extension rather than the fact that you are looking for new office space at a tremendous cost. In other words, two-thirds of the $35 million cost could be attributable to the buttressing effect on the old wall and the relief from having to spend the $20 or $25 million that it would cost to replace or repair that wall and make it structurally sound without the buttressing. Mr. STEWART. We have had some estimates that it will run as high as $50 million. It is an imponderable. You cannot tell exactly what you are going to find in undertaking restoration. Mr. ANDREWS of North Dakota. In other words, what you are trying to do is buttress the old wall and as you are getting that repaired you are getting as a bonus these extra rooms and facilities? Certainly we hope rest room facilities, restaurant and committee rooms will utilize this space but this will be determined by the Commission. But the space you are getting is essentially a bonus that you would not get if you just tried to replace the wall that is there now. Mr. STEWART. Not only that but this will provide for permanenttype construction on the west side. The building will then be in overall Sound condition. Mr. ANDREWS of North Dakota. Every time I have taken an architect from home or an engineer-contractor through the east front I have had nothing but compliments about the way that you saved the old walls. You duplicated them exactly in marble and made a most attractive spot out of it and I think you are to be complimented. Actually, as far as costs go, I wish that the press, when they dig into this, would compare the hullabaloo they give you as Capitol Architect with the things that happen in other parts of this Government of ours. Not too long ago on another subcommittee on which I serve we unearthed the case of the Bureau of Standards when they moved out to Gaithersburg they accelerated their building cost, almost doubled it from $60 million to over $100 million. When we were digging through the add-ons afterwards I found an item for $45,000 for a flagpole. I said to the individual how high is this flagpole? He said 90 feet. Now, that figures to $500 a foot for a flagpole. Of course, Mr. Architect, it is a stainless steel flagpole and certainly typifies what some architects will do with Government funds. This you have not done. I think, by and large, other than the question of competitive bidding in some of these cases which is patently impossible to obtain, working with old structures, I do not notice any stainless steel flagpoles around here. So you are to be complimented for this, Mr. Architect. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Architect, what do you plan to use the lot down there across the street from the new garage, where the old Mars Furniture Store was located? Mr. STEWART. It is going to have a small amount of landscaping and it will be converted into a parking area. Mr. ANDREWS. Now we take up the first item, "Salaries of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol," on page 76 of the bill, page 7 of the justification. We will insert the so-called blue sheets, pages 7 and 8. (The pages follow :) Salaries, Office of the Architect 1967 appropriation in annual act_. Pay supplemental (Public Law 89-504 pay increase) Total appropriations-1967-Deductions: "Pay above the stated annual rate" allotment eliminated for 1968 and funds for 1968 transferred to "Overtime pay" allotment 659, 500 -1, 800 Base for 1968_____ 657, 700 Additions: Wage-rate increases authorized by Public Law 763, 83d Cong., for wage-board employees_. Within-grade salary advancements and other changes authorized by the Classification Act of 1949, as amended__ Increased pay costs due to Public Law 89-504, approved July 18, 1966, "Federal Salary and Fringe Benefits Act of 1966". The increases authorized by this act cost, on an annual basis, $16,576. Of this amount, $4,776 was absorbed through savings for the fiscal year 1967, necessitating a supplemental appropriation of $11,800 for that year. This leaves a balance of $4,776 necessary to cover a full-year cost in 1968. However, we proposed to meet $2,776 of this balance through proposed lapse savings in 1968, thereby reducing the additional amount necessary to request for 1968 to $2,000 "Overtime pay" allotment increased from $56,500 to $58,300_. This increase results from transfer of $1,800 from the "Pay above the stated annual rate" allotment. Next year being leap year, there would normally be 2 excess basic workdays to be compensated. However, in the fiscal year 1968, the 2 excess days fall on a Saturday and Sunday. As most of the employees under the Architect are required to work 4 hours on Saturdays (an overtime day) at time and one-half pay, the amount normally allowed for 1 additional basic day's pay is being transferred for 1968 from the "Pay above the stated annual rate" allotment to the "Overtime pay" allotment. Contribution to retirement fund increased from $36,000 to $37,500- This increase results from increase in basic pay rates and is requested to cover the cost of Governmen contribution to retirement fund required by Public Law 854, 84th Cong., title IV, "Civil Service Retirement Act Amendments of 1956" Total Total estimate for 1968----- 585 14, 615 2,000 1, 800 1,500 +20, 500 678, 200 Mr. ANDREWS. Suppose you explain these items, Mr. Architect, or some other member of your staff. Mr. STEWART. The appropriation for 1967 is $647,700 plus $11,800 in the supplemental, or a total of $659,500. Mr. ANDREWS. That is for 1967? Mr. STEWART. That is right. Mr. ANDREWS. What is your figure for 1968 ? Mr. HENLOCK. $678,200. Mr. ANDREWs. An increase of what? Mr. HENLOCK. A net increase of $18,700. Mr. STEWART. For 1968, we are asking $585 for Wage Board increases; $14,615 for within-grade advancements and other changes under the Classification Act; $2,000 for increased pay costs under the Federal salary fringe benefits act of 1966; under overtime pay, an increase of $1,800; $1,500 increase under Government contribution to the retirement fund. Mr. ANDREWS. So your total request for 1968 is $678,200? Mr. ANDREWS. As compared to $659,500 for 1967? Mr. STEWART. Yes sir; a net increase of $18,700. Mr. ANDREWS. On the increased pay cost item, do I understand you to say that you are projecting a further absorption of $2,776 in fiscal year 1968 as well? Mr. HENLOCK. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The gross cost for this item in 1967 was $16,576. We absorbed $4,776 of that cost this year in asking for our supplemental, and are projecting $2,776 of that absorption next year, leaving a $2,000 balance that we cannot absorb for 1968. The larger absorption for 1967 was due to the fact you gave us two new jobs for 1967 and the bill did not become law until August 27, 1966, resulting in several month's savings in delay in filling those positions. Also, we had several older employees retire last December. Savings were effected in the filling of their positions. Mr. ANDREWS. On the overtime item, how many people paid from this appropriation generally work on Saturdays? Mr. HENLOCK. It is about 45. Mr. ANDREWS. And of that number how many are entitled under the law to time and a half pay for that? Mr. HENLOCK. All of them. Mr. ANDREWS. I notice that you had a savings that reverted to the Treasury, of some $14,000 in fiscal year 1966; is that correct? Mr. HENLOCK. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. What generally would that arise from? You just do not refill all vacancies right away, and that kind of thing? Mr. HENLOCK. That is right. Mr. ANDREWS. You are not asking for any additional employees in the central office, are you? Mr. HENLOCK. No, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. Any questions on that item? Mr. ANDREWS. We go over to contingent expenses, page 78 of the print and page 16 of the justification. Mr. STEWART. This is $50,000 contingent expenses, same as we had year. During the fiscal year 1967, allocations totaling $22,581 have been e against this fund, of which $10,581 has been for the purchase 20 walnut chairs, smaller than chairs formerly in use, and eight t plastic table tops for use in the main dining room, House aurants, Members' side, to accommodate more Members; and $2 for installation of a refrigerated meat room in the House urant's kitchen, basement, House side of Capitol, to provide ate refrigerated space for the storage of meat. H Eth of the above listed items were approved by the Speaker of the of Representatives. Mr. ANDREWS. Your request is to continue the $50,000? Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. What have you to say about this? According to 1× you had at some previous date allocated $22,581. Do you have ater tigure and a later breakdown? Mr. ROOF. That figure still obtains, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ANDREWS. What would have been the urgency about the 90 As for the dining room? What happened to the ones that were splaced! Mr. STEWART. We have those in storage. Mr. ROOF. The old ones have been placed in storage. Mr. ANDREWS. What will you do with them? Mr. STEWART. We will keep them for some future use. Mr. ANDREWS. Are they usable? Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. Why did you have to replace them? Mr. STEWART. In order to accommodate more Members in the main z room during the rush hours and afford more space between Mr HENLOCK. These are smaller chairs than those formerly in use se it possible to seat more Members at each table. Vr ANDREWS. How many more? X. STEWART. We added 20 chairs. |