buildings in the vicinity of Sixth and B Streets, namely, temporary buildings C, D, E, and F, and the administration buildings, which have a floor space of 1,277,913 square feet; the temporary group, which includes the temporary buildings in the vicinity west of Eighteenth Street and north of B Street NW., Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, which have a floor space of 845,912 square feet; the Potomac Park group, which includes the Munitions and Navy Buildings, south of B Street and west of Seventeenth Street, which have a floor space of 1,796,432 square feet; and the Interior group, which includes the Interior Department Building, the Interstate Commerce Commission Building, and the Commerce Building, and 1800 E Street, which have a floor space of 1,101,996 square feet.

I want to say that in carrying out the policy which I imagine was agreed upon by the Committee on Appropriations these estimates have been lumped under two headings, instead of being set out in great detail as last year, and the salaries have been placed under a fump sum for all the buildings, which is in accordance with the reclassification figures. We have a detailed list of those estimated for. The miscellaneous expenses have been lumped under one heading, and this arrangement of lumping these appropriations for salaries will be advantageous to the Government, because it will give more latitude in doing away with positions when they are not needed, and it makes it a little more flexible. You will notice that our estimates this year, including reclassification, are not quite as large, even taking into account the bonus, as they were last year. That is due to a saving in a certain number of positions.

Mr. BYRNES. You reduced the number of positions by what

number?

Colonel SHERRILL. By 129.

Mr. WOOD. What about the expenditures?

Colonel SHERRILL. That is a little less. The amount of the appropriation for 1924 was $1,692,136, while the estimate for 1925 is $1,636,215. I think there are not many offices that show a decrease after reclassification, because there has been a very slight increase in each individual's pay, usually about 2 per cent, in most of the offices.

Mr. Wood. Some of them run about 4 per cent.

Mr. BYRNES. That is by reason of reclassification?

Colonel SHERRILL. Yes. Our increase, as far as individual positions are concerned, is very, very slight, but because of the reduction of a number of positions we show a gross decrease rather than an increase.

REDUCTIONS IN NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES.

(See p. 34, 39.)

Mr. BYRNES. Where is the greatest reduction in the number of positions?

Colonel SHERRILL. It is largely in the labor force, where, by better organization and rearrangement we have cut off quite a number. I have a list of those it was proposed to cut off when we first put in our estimates, and in addition to that we had arbitrarily cut off others, so that we have cut down to a still lower figure than the Budget asked us to come to, lower than our original estimate.

We made a net reduction of 82 in the total number of positions and we only added one; that is, a clock repairer. When we came to present these estimates to the Budget, they had a difference of $46,000 or $47,000 and they asked us to cut down further, so that we had to make an arbitrary cut, making the difference between 83 and 129, which we have shown here. I had that all detailed for the original figures.

Mr. WOOD. Where were these cuts made? In what branch of the service?

Colonel SHERRILL. I have here a detailed list of the ones we have cut down. I will put this table in the record, if you desire it. Mr. WOOD. We would like to have that.

(The table above referred to was sent to the committee.)

Mr. BYRNES. You are not going to get them back from some other source and have them assigned from any other department, are you? Colonel SHERRILL. No; we do not get any assignments from any other departments. This appropriation for maintenance of public buildings is absolutely self-containing, and the money is only used for that purpose, and no other money is available.

Mr. Wood. Are you prepared to tell us how much it costs for the operation of each of these buildings, or the number of employees you have in each building?

Colonel SHERRILL. We have heretofore been able to give the cost of each individual building, itemized. In order to conform to this appropriation, the way it is worded here, I have now only a table showing the appropriations by years and the areas of square feet maintained, but that does not show each building. I can get that for you.

There has been a steady decrease in the amount of money expended on these buildings as a whole, and individually, although Congress has steadily increased the number of buildings and the floor space which the office is responsible for, as indicated by this chart.

ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS ADDED TO JURISDICTION OF OFFICE.

(See p. 39.)

Mr. Wood. We have not as much floor space this year as heretofore, have we, because some of the temporary buildings were torn down? Colonel SHERRILL. That is true, but Congress has added a very large number to the jurisdiction of this office. They added the Interior Building, the Commerce Building, and the Interstate Commerce Commission Building.

Mr. WOOD. As I understand it, we authorized you last year to take over the Interstate Commerce Commission Building?

Colonel SHERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wood. And I have been informed that you took over the Bureau of Standards, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and other buildings.

Colonel SHERRILL. That was under the provisions written into that act, which said that the Commerce Building or buildings should come under our jurisdiction. That was put in by the committee without any consideration on our part, so we did not know it was going in, and we really ought to investigate those buildings to determine whether or not that is advantageous.

Mr. WOOD. Has it turned out to be advantageous or not? Colonel SHERRILL. In view of the fact that there was no detailed study made, we have not been able to determine that. This was recently presented to the Bureau of the Budget, and it was agreed that until this matter could come before the committee again to determine whether they wanted to retain that feature, we would disturb the arrangement there as little as possible, so during this year the only change made necessary so as to carry out the law was to have this expenditure made under the superintendent.

Mr. Wood. Is the Bureau of Standards a part of the Department of Commerce?

Colonel SHERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wood. And the Coast and Geodetic Survey?

Colonel SHERRILL. Yes, sir. We have not disturbed their arrangements for the operation of their buildings because we thought possibly when that matter was presented to the committee they migh want to go back to the old system.

Mr. WOOD. We would like to know something about that. This thought has occurred to me. The fact is, we have saved a lot of money in the consolidation of the care of these buildings. But the Bureau of Standards is away off by itself, and the Coast and Geodetic Survey is away off by itself in the other direction, and I wonder whether or not there would be any extraordinary cost in the supervision that would make it counteract any saving that might be made. Colonel SHERRILL. We presented that to the Bureau of the Budget. As soon as I found this provision there I at once inquired what effect it would have, and we were told we would have to carry out the law and to supervise the expenditures. So I made an arrangement with the Department of Commerce by which they operate just as before, and I only handle such portion of that as might be required by law; in other words, we do not interfere with their methods. So I really have not undertaken to handle that job, and, therefore, I am not prepared to say whether or not I can save money.

Mr. WOOD. What do you mean by that?

Colonel SHERRILL. I am having them handle it as the agent of my office, because if we were to undertake to go in and disturb conditions existing, we could not tell whether we would save or not, and my thought was that we would not want to do that unless it were decided to retain that method.

Mr. WOOD. That is why we would like to know whether we should retain it. The committee would like to know whether it is a feasible thing to do. What is your view about that?

Colonel SHERRILL. Everything we did was done after consultation with the Bureau of the Budget and the comptroller to see that we were carrying out the intent of the law.

Here is the situation out there. They may have one employee, for instance, who devotes a part of his time to building maintenance and a part of it to something else. There are various other arrangements that might be changed, but we had a hearing a few weeks ago before the Bureau of the Budget, and the Director of the Budget was anxious to have it continued. I told him I was not prepared to say what I thought of it, and if he wanted to get a report the thing to do would be to let us examine the matter thoroughly and make a report. It was finally agreed between the Director of the Budget, the Director of the Bureau of Standards, and also by myself that prior to the sub

mission of the next estimates we would make a thorough study of that, and then we could tell you definitely whether we would save any money or not by operating under the Superintendent of the State, War, and Navy Buildings, and if we can not save money there is no advantage in doing it.

NUMBER EMPLOYED IN VARIOUS BUILDINGS.

Mr. Woop. If you can give us a statement as to the number of people employed on the various buildings and their salaries, I wish you would do it.

Colonel SHERRILL. Yes; I can do that. I have here a comparative statement of the employees in the State, War, and Navy Department building proper, for the years 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924. In 1919 we had in that building 246 employees; in 1920 we had 176; in 1921 we had 175; in 1922 we had 160; in 1923 we had 155, and the estimate for 1924 is 128. So that number has gone down from 246 in 1919 to 128.

Mr. WOOD. In 1919 you had a temporary building on the inside. of the State, War, and Navy Building that necessitated the employment of some more people, I suppose?

Colonel SHERRILL. Yes; and we kept that until 1922. This, however, is a steady drop all the way through.

Mr. WOOD. As you are going along with these estimates, I think it would be a good idea with reference to the estimates you have and in making up your budget which you have in mind, to set out the amount for each building. I suppose you have a certain appropriation for the conduct of each of these buildings, or you allow a certain proportion for each building?

Colonel SHERRILL. Yes; we make an estimate for each of the buildings.

Mr. WOOD. Have you that now? It occurs to me at this time that we ought to have estimates for the cost of each of these buildings.

Colonel SHERRILL. When we submitted the estimates we submitted them on that basis, and then the estimate was revised into a lump sum, so we did not go into those figures any further. But I have a detailed estimate for each building.

Mr. Wood. Even if you did afterwards put them all in one lump sum, you must have based your calculations and the amount of the lump sum upon an estimate for each building.

Colonel SHERRILL. Yes; that was based in each case on the actual number required for each building, but we have not set that out here because it was only set out in the initial estimates.

Mr. WOOD. But we will probably be asked what it costs to run each building, and we would like to have those figures.

Colonel SHERRILL. Here is the total which you want. This was our preliminary estimate before the consolidation. For general administration we have a certain amount for the State, War and Navy Building, and we have an amount which was transferred in 1924 to the amount required for salaries and the bonus, and various other things that went all the way through. Then we had a similar estimate for miscellaneous expenses, so we can prepare such a statement showing how much we spent and how much we need for each building.

REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF GUARDS-INSTALLATION OF PATROL SYSTEM.

Mr. BYRNES. Is there an increase in the cost of maintenance of any of these buildings?

Colonel SHERRILL. No, sir; we have constantly decreased, rather rapidly. For instance, there is a chart which shows the increase in floor space. These lines going up here [indicating on chart], shows the increase in floor space under the office going upward, on a certain scale. I also have the units. Here it dropped [indicating on chart] because we took down some buildings; but here it goes up again because additional buildings were added by Congress.

You will also notice how equally rapidly the number of guards has gone down. Here [indicating on chart], for instance, in 1919 we had 847 guards with 4,642,637 square feet of floor space. Down here [indicating on chart] in 1923, instead of those figures we have 338 guards with 7,012,251 square feet.

Mr. BYRNES. That is because you no longer have temporary buildings which require the presence of so many guards, is it not?

Colonel SHERRILL. We have much more floor space, and the real reason for that decrease is that we have dispensed with a large number of guards and put in patrol systems and have done away with a lot of the guards.

Mr. Woods. They found out they would have to get rid of some of those guards in order to find room in which to work.

Mr. SUMMERS. You say there has been something more than 50 per cent reduction in the number of guards. What is the increase in the floor space?

Colonel SHERRILL. That is pretty nearly 50 per cent, from four and a half to seven million square feet.

Mr. BYRNES. You substituted the patrol system for the guards? Colonel SHERRILL. Yes, sir. In war time the buildings had to be more rigidly guarded, due to war conditions, but ever since then the number has been going down steadily.

CLEANING COST PER FOOT SPACE.

Another item which shows the rate of expenditure is this: Here is a chart showing the employees per 10,000 square feet [indicating chart].

The first column shows four and a half employees per 10,000 square feet, in 1916, which has gone down now to 2.4 employees per 10,000 square feet in 1924.

Another chart which is interesting is this chart showing the ratio of cleaning cost per square foot. This chart [indicating chart], shows that it cost us approximately 16 cents per square foot per year to clean in 1920; and now that has been cut down to about 11

cents.

Mr. BYRNES. In part that is due to the fact that you did get rid of some of the old buildings, and you have taken in such a building as the Interior Department Building, which ought to cost less to maintain than the temporary buildings.

Colonel SHERRILL. Our figures do not show that to be the case. This is almost entirely due to better organization and getting more work out of the employees.