What intrigued me was the fact that while we spend this money for electronic machinery, computers, magic brains, and so forth, irrespective of that, personnel keeps going on up. I can argue on both sides of that question, but when it comes to arguing the value of the dollar, through the years, I have to resolve those questions on the side of the Appropriations Committees' traditional approach to this. If we can hold down unnecessary personnel, we should do so.

Mr. ROBERTS. I was going to give you an illustration. When we went into the dial system on telephones, the telephone company said we could get rid of all 50 of the operators we had at that time. We have had vacancies and I have never filled any of those vacancies. I guess it amounts to 12 or more. You cannot do away with all of them but we have not replaced any of them who have died, resigned, or retired.

Mr. MEGILL. Traffic across the board has increased very much during that period of time.

Mr. HORAN. Here is a very practical thing before us, Mr. Chairman, and I suggest we give it further thought.

Mr. ROBERTS. Along that line

Mr. STEED. I think it does offer the possibility of some very substantial progress.

Mr. ROBERTS. There are two or three vacancies in the disbursing office right now because we have not been able to find qualified people for those positions. These salaries alone would more than pay for this monthly expenditure for the writing of checks.

Mr. STEED. At a few cents a check, the savings in one salary would probably be enough to offset that.

Mr. Bow. How do you know that, Mr. Clerk? You do not know what it is going to cost. I tried to get some costs.

Mr. ROBERTS. The different companies have given me estimates and I think one company even made us a proposal that it would cost about 10 or 15 cents a check.

Mr. HARPER. As the volume goes up, the price goes down.

We have to have a related check register and some other related papers, Mr. Bow. I have never seen a figure that went beyond 10 or 12 cents a check, and with 4,000 checks, you can see it does not run into a lot of money. One or two positions would offset the cost of any figure that I have seen up to date.

CLERK'S ANNUAL REPORT

Mr. STEED. In our discussion last year about the Clerk's annual report, what has happened there?

Mr. ROBERTS. The House Administration Committee presented a resolution this year in which they said they wanted the exclusive right to prepare and publish that report, so I turned it over to the House Administration Committee.

Mr. STEED. Was this House Resolution 476 of the 87th Congress?
Mr. ROBERTS. That is right.

Mr. STEED. Should this also be made permanent in the same way as these other resolutions? Do you have any comment on that?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, I think this is in a different category, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. HARPER. The resolutions we include regard positions which will require additional money. We must put these resolutions in to get the money to carry forward.

In the case of the Clerk's report, that was a consideration by the House Committee on Administration and the House itself and I think probably beyond the jurisdiction of the Clerk as to whether it should be made permanent or not. I do not think the Clerk has any feelings in the matter, but the basic law requires the Clerk to submit the report and the resolution altered that somewhat. We can live under either law.

STATIONERY ROOM REGULATIONS

Mr. STEED. I believe last year you found it necessary to promulgate some regulations about the scope of the operations of the Stationery Room. Is the problem pretty well stabilized as a result of the action you took?

Mr. ROBERTS. The administration committee approved the rules and regulations we recommended.

Mr. STEED. Has the function under those been good?

Mr. ROBERTS. Very good.

Mr. STEED. Does the GAO audit report have any comment of particular importance this year?

Mr. ROBERTS. I thought it was a very good report, Mr. Chairman. We have it here and it has been some time since I looked it over, but they did not find anything wrong.

Mr. STEED. If it has any pats on the back in it, it would be well to include those in the record at this time.

Mr. ROBERTS. They never do that. They never give you any pats on the back.

They did not make any criticism.

GAO REPORT ON RECORDING STUDIO

Mr. STEED. They made some reference, I understand, to the revolving fund of the recording studio.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is an old question and Mr. Bow is familiar with that.

Mr. STEED. Do their comments on that point bear on this? The salaries are appropriated items and are not involved in the revolving fund but I just wondered if you had any comment to make as to the authenticity of their recommendations in that regard.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, in the first place, we have a policy committee, of which Mr. Bow is a member, to adopt policy.

Mr. STEED. The committee has taken no action one way or the other?

Mr. Bow. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of that committee is going to appear before this subcommittee this year and I think perhaps the request will come up then. We are familiar with that.

Mr. MEGILL. Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be well to read one statement with regard to the Stationery Room.

The Comptroller General says:

*** Audit for the fiscal year 1961 indicated that the activities of the Stationery Room were being conducted in a generally satisfactory manner and that the records were accurate and efficiently maintained.

Mr. HORAN. That is good.

Mr. STEED. You may proceed with the committee employees item.

COMMITTEE EMPLOYEES

For committee employees, other than special and select, which are under a separate heading, we are requesting $2,950,000 for 1963, compared with $2,900,000 appropriated for 1962, or an increase of $50,000 over that appropriated for 1962.

For the 19 standing committees, other than the Committee on Appropriations, which is based on the assumption of 216 positions, the maximum now provided by law, 10 for each committee, or 190, with the exception of the Committee on the Judiciary, which has 13 positions; the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which has 12 positions; the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which has 13 positions; the Committee on Armed Services, which has 12 positions; and the Committee on Ways and Means, which has 26 positions.

The law authorized basic salaries ranging from $5,000 to $8,880 for each professional position and not to exceed $8,880 basic for each clerical position but, with the several increases now in effect, it is possible under the law for each position-professional or clerical-to pay the full gross amount of $17,649 per annum. Although quite a number of positions pay this maximum rate of salary, it is not expected that all positions will do so because experience shows they do not. As of February 28, 1962, there were 185 employees carried on the rolls of the 19 standing committees referred to at a gross salary of $2,277,625 per annum, or an average salary of $12,311 each as against the maximum authorized of 216 positions.

The Committee on Appropriations payroll, as of February 28, 1962, totaled 46 employees and $435,681 gross per annum, or an average salary of $9,471 each.

As you know, of course, these are the so-called regular committee employees and do not include people employed under special and select investigating and study funds allocated from time to time by special resolutions of the House.

The gross salaries for the regular committee employees of the 20 standing committees, as of February 28, 1962, was $2,713,306 at an average annual salary of $11,746.

If agreeable, I will insert the usual tabulation summarizing the personnel for the 19 standing committees as of February 28, 1962.

Mr. STEED. The tabulation will be inserted at this point in the record. (The tabulation follows:)

Standing committee employees as of Feb. 28, 1962 (other than Committee on

Appropriations)

Mr. ROBERTS. Since the Reorganization Act of 1946 became effective, the committee has provided funds for the maximum number of positions possible (216), plus the Appropriations Committee, at an approximate average salary sufficient to provide adequate funds for additions to the staffs as the various committees may decide, or for changes in salaries. All salary rates are fixed by each committee.

There is, of course, no way of stating definitely at this time just how much money will be required for these positions except that it is believed that the appropriation should be based on the maximum number of positions with an overall gross salary which would give sufficient leeway for reasonable salary changes based on experience. The estimate was prepared with that in mind.

Mr. STEED. This increase of $50,000 is I suppose what we can call an educated guess, the best that you can arrive at under the circumstances outlined?

Mr. HARPER. That is correct.

PUBLICATION OF JOINT COMMITTEE EMPLOYEE LISTS

Mr. STEED. The Congressional Record carries twice a year a salary list of all committee employees of the House committees. This does not seem to apply to the joint committees. Do you know why their salaries are not required to be so published? Do you know any reason why they should not be published?

Mr. ROBERTS. The law does not state they should be included.

Mr. STEED. Has there ever been any reason given why they were omitted from the law requiring that others be published?

Mr. HARPER. I have a feeling, Mr. Chairman, some of these committees came into being after the basic statute was passed.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think there was but one joint committee at that time, the Committee on Printing.

Mr. HARPER. The list has grown and maybe there were not a sufficient number at that time. We have no way of knowing.

Mr. STEED. Proceed.

OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS

Mr. ROBERTS. For the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, $618,150, the same as appropriated in 1962, there being no change in this paragraph. Mr. STEED. At this point, we have Mr. Johnson, the Sergeant at Arms, here, and I think it would be well if we have some comment from him.

Could you give us a statement as to your functions and activities that would be helpful?

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

The first part of my statement has been pretty well covered and that pertains to salaries and mileage of members, but under the heading of "the Office of the Sergeant at Arms," I do have a short statement.

The budget request for the Office of the Seargeant at Arms is $618,150, the same as last year. This includes a lump sum which the committee has been good enough to provide for additional clerical assistance for use in an emergency. I am happy to report to the committee that none of the lump sum has been used in fiscal year 1962 and none will be used unless absolutely necessary. Since I have been Sergeant at Arms, the personnel has not increased in my office, although the workload has increased substantially due to increase in Members' salary, hospitalization, insurance, and changes in the retirement law, also increasing number of Member accounts. But we believe that we have been able to render the various services to the membership in a satisfactory manner.

Mr. HORAN. Could I ask a question there?

Mr. STEED. Yes.

Mr. HORAN. How long has it been since you had any change in the basic salaries of the employees in the Sergeant at Arms' Office?

Mr. JOHNSON. The last was the 7.5-percent general pay raise. As to the basic salary, there have been no changes since I have been Sergeant at Arms.

Mr. HORAN. What happened in your predecessor's regime? You are acquainted with that, too?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. There was one additional cashier under his administration.

Mr. HORAN. It had nothing to do with basic salary?
Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir.

Mr. HORAN. That was just an addition to the force?

Mr. JOHNSON. Just an addition to the force; that is correct. That was before I became Sergeant at Arms.

Mr. HORAN. The footnote on page 16 of the bill states that effective February 1, 1961, the basic salary for the Deputy Sergeant at Arms in charge of pairs was increased from $5,000 to $7,000 authorized by House Resolution 138, February 2, 1961.

That is the one you referred to?

Mr. JOHNSON. No, Mr. Horan; this was actually not in the Office itself. This was a pair clerk assigned to the floor of the House.