Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 menibership 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.

Mr. HORAN. Also, the footnote says that effective July 1, 1958, longevity pay increase for Capital Police Force?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. HORAN. Then there has been very little change in your Office in the last few years?

Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. Mr. STEED. I believe that last year we provided, under the Architect, some money for some physical improvements in the Office.

Can you make some comment as to the status of that at this time?

Mr. JOHNSON. I want to express my appreciation for the funds appropriated in last year's budget under the Architect. The installation of a new cashier's counter and a new rubber-tile floor was badly needed and it is my understanding that the Architect has let the contract for these improvements.

Mr. STEED. Are they getting to the point where they can make those installations?

Mr. Johnson. They expect to do it during the sine die adjournment of Congress this year. That is my understanding; yes, sir.

Mr. STEED. Mr. Horan and Mr. Bow, do you have any questions? Mr. HORAN. No.

Mr. Bow. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to say to the Sergeant at Arms that I appreciate the courtesy of his office to Members. I have heard many Members mention the courtesy of his office and his employees, particularly in the bank and the manner in which everyone is treated.

I think you are to be complimented and your employees are to be complimented, and I join with Mr. Horan in having some interest in salaries there.

Are your employees pretty much in line with similar work in banks downtown, Mr. Johnson?

Mr. Johnson. Of course, I am very proud of the personnel in my Office.

Mr. Bow. You have a right to be proud.

Mr. Johnson. They have done a wonderful job and I feel that in the near future there should be some adjustment in the salaries in the Office.

Mr. Bow. Have you made some investigation to determine comparability of salaries of similar positions in private industry?

Mr. JOHNSON. As you know, to get proper personnel in banks, they do have to pay high salaries, and in comparison with banks, the salaries paid in my Office, I would think that they are a little higher than those in commercial banks. Of course, that does not compare with other personnel of the House.

Mr. STEED. The functions of the employees in your Office include a number of services to Members that go over and beyond what the ordinary bank employee does.

Mr. Bow. And the hours are different, too, Mr. Johnson?

I think you should take a good look at the salary setup in your Office. We cannot afford to lose these good men.

Mr. JOHNSON. Absolutely; I was taking the service and the hours into consideration. Mr. Bow. That is all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STEED. Mr. Johnson, on behalf of the committee, we all want to express our appreciation to you and your Office for the very fine service you render us. I do not know any nicer compliment than to say that any function of your type, the committee receives no complaints from Members.

Mr. Johnson. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STEED. That is one way of saying we feel a lack of complaints is probably the most complimentary thing that can happen because certainly complaints can be created around here quite easily.

I use that as a means of saying it is our opinion the function is quite satisfactory. :* Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Office.

Mr. STEED. Do you have any more comments you would like to make?

SUGGESTED CHANGE IN FUNERAL COMMITTEE PROVISION Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, there is one additional request I want to bring before the committee. This is not a very pleasant subject, but it is something we must consider and that is the expenses of funerals of deceased Members of the House.

I would like to bring to the attention of the committee a suggested change in the language under title II, section 124 of the United States Code, regarding funeral expenses in connection with deceased Members of the House.

It is my feeling to conform to the wishes and the practices of the House that, during adjournment periods, the Speaker should be in a position, under the law, to appoint additional Members without being arbitrarily limited to four Members.

I have discussed this matter with various officials and there is agreement that this should be a desirable change and the expense would not be greater. State delegations are usually appointed during the adjournment and they would be in their districts. As you know, under the provision of the present law, when a Member dies during adjournment, the size of the funeral committee is limited to four Members of the House and two of the Senate. The practice of the House has been to adopt a resolution naming a funeral committee in a number larger than four Members when they are in session. We have several of these resolutions when they are in session and this is House Resolution 467. In that resolution the Speaker appointed 9 members of the funeral delegation, and in House Resolution 228 the Speaker in this case appointed 12 Members of the House.

During adjournment, where there is a limit of four, this would make more equally divided appointments.

Mr. STEED. The precedent of the House was set when it was in a position to take some action, and it is quite clear. It certainly ought to be in the discretion of the Speaker to arrange these matters because, from our own personal experience, we know that deaths that occur in recess do have many different implications. I think I agree with you that we put ourselves in a rather severe straitjacket with the law as it now stands.

I think in the long run it involves less money actually than otherwise, and I hope some action can be generated in that regard.

I am sure that every Member has had some personal experience in this area, and at a time of that sort it is quite difficult sometimes to

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

explain to families and others why such a severe restriction is placed
on that particular point. It is especially true in the case of Mem-
bers who have long tenure and a wide number of friends and ad-
mirers. It seems to me to be a place where a little more reasonable
attitude would be well taken.

Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. STEED. You may proceed with the next item.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

OFFICE OF THE DOORKEEPER Mr. ROBERTS. For the Office of the Doorkeeper, $1,058,310, the same as appropriated in 1962, there being no change in this paragraph.

Mr. STEED. At this point we have Mr. Miller, our Doorkeeper, and I would like for him to make any comment he might desire.

We know that he likewise performs a most valuable and varied function to the Members and to the House. I think it would be well for our record to take note of that.

Mr. Bow. Mr. Chairman, before he speaks may I also make this statement for the Doorkeeper. Let me speak, I am sure, for all of the minority, that we are very appreciative of the services received from Mr. Miller's Office. He is a majority employee and appointee, actually, but that does not seem to make much difference to him when it comes to being of service to those of us on the minority side. Also may I say we are proud, too, of the work being done by the minority employees.

I many times hear my colleagues on my side of the aisle express appreciation for the courtesies extended to us by the Doorkeeper.

Mr. STEED. I cannot speak from experience but I am sure that all previous Doorkeepers were outstanding men and they performed well, but I think we can all agree that in the case of our present Doorkeeper, he has at least added what you might call a new dimension to the service and function of the office peculiar to himself.

Mr. Horan. I might quote Speaker Martin in saying that the name of the fellow a lot of us do not know is William Moseley Miller. Speaker Martin said that he is one of the best that ever filled the office.

Mr. STEED. Mr. Miller, what do you have to say for yourself!

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here and I hope that during this meeting your Doorkeeper will be able to live up to some of the ratings that have been going on at this time.

It is a pleasure for me to be of service to my people here at the Congress. As Congresses go, I am starting my 30th year and as the calendar goes, I am about ready to wind up my 29th year. I hope you people on both sides of the aisle will continue to put up with me and that I will be allowed, through the mercies of God, to continue to be able to have the strength and the privilege of working here for a long

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

time to come.

Thank you.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Mr. STEED. Last year when we were making a firsthand survey and tour of the physical properties of the Capitol, and its environs, we became aware of the fact that in one phase of your functions, storage space was at somewhat of a premium.

[ocr errors]

cependent

81771-62---10

We hope with the physical improvements being made in the building, some improvements can be made in the facilities you have available for the work you do, especially in the current copies of the Congressional Record and that sort of thing that you have to cope with as well as in the operation of the folding room.

I note that there have been those who tried to interpret some of the work volume there in less than complimentary terms. I wish you would make some comment about the volume of work done there and the fact that sometimes you find material waiting to be processed stored in the halls and other places.

Is that, or is that not, unusual?

IMPROVEMENT IN FIRE HAZARDS SITUATION

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, let me answer the first part of your question.

I do appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Ohio and your committee are interested in fire hazards here in the Capitol. The fact is that we do have a small space to store our daily copies of the Congressional Record. During this interim period around here when we are rebuilding and refurbishing our Capitol, I find I am able to secure, by asking, certain supposedly thrown-away steel cabinets, that stand on end with no covering whatsoever but they do take Records off the floor. When it becomes possible for us to have the necessary

our basement underneath the office where we might have complete control over the fire hazard situation of the Records as now handled.

I believe if you were to go down there this afternoon you would find a definite improvement. You would find no fire hazard as such. In fact, when they get through working down there during this period of renovation, we hope to be able to lock that section of the storage space and there will be nobody down there other than authorized personnel from the Doorkeeper's office.

Mr. STEED. That is good.

FOLDING ROOM WORKLOAD Mr. MILLER. Now, to answer the second part of your question, Mr. Chairman.

I have obtained some figures for 1956, 1958, 1960, and 1962. Those were the years when we people in the Congress must go out and visit our constituencies to win reelection or get elected. There is a tendency for an increase in the workload handled by the House folding room and we find in 1956, January, they had a workload in number of pieces of 2,705,751; in 1961, it was 10,657,342; and, in fact, 2 years before, 1960 and 1958, it was over 10 million. Mr. STEED. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. STEED. In connection with the figures you have given about the volume the folding room normally is called upon to handle, I would like to point out that criticism has been levied recently implying that much of this volume generated by the so-called patron mail. The workload observed presently going on is a normal thing and would not be attributable to so-called patron mail; with or without patron

..it was 10,6% had a workthe House fos a tendency

« PreviousContinue »