The way it is now, we have the total steam tunnel system, all the way from the powerplant to the Government Printing Office, past the Supreme Court, Library of Congress, and the House Office Building complex and the Senate Office Buildings, wired with this intrusion alarm system which ties in with our communication system.

Yet, when the alarm goes off, we immediately have to assign two police officers to go in each end of the tunnel and work their way underground until they meet to insure that some person has not unlawfully gotten in there and left some item of destruction or whatever.

PROFICIENT POLICE FORCE

Mr. SHIPLEY. You testified last year, Chief, as I recall, and correct me if my memory is not correct, that we had a very proficient police force.

Chief POWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHIPLEY. You have been able to incorporate all of the troops, so to speak, with the various training programs that you have, sending them to the FBI's training school and others, and I agree with you. I think we have a very good police force here.

Chief POWELL. Thank you, sir.

FILLING OF VACANCIES

Mr. SHIPLEY. The thought comes to my mind again regarding the 18 vacancies, and, of course, you know my feelings, and I don't have a thing to do with the police force, that if I was the police board per se, I would not go down to the Metropolitan Police and pick anybody up and bring them up here, if we had qualified people here.

I am going to reiterate what I said last year and the year before, that I think you have qualified people on the police force here, and advancements and better positions should be filled by those people, I know I am not an expert on who qualifies and who does not, that is certainly in the jurisdiction of you as chief and the police board to make this decision.

You said you have eight vacancies, as I understand it, in the Metropolitan detail. I would hope none of those vacancies would be filled very frankly. Personally I would like to see I don't care what the Police Board or leadership or anybody else says or thinks about it, I am giving my personal feelings, but I hope you would not fill any of the vacancies with Metropolitan policemen-I have nothing against those people already detailed to the Hill.

I think they are doing a good job; I think you do a good job, but that has nothing to do with building our own police force and utilizing the people we have on board, I can't believe that with the experience you have had and with the fine record that you have had as a law enforcement officer that you haven't been able to whip this organization into shape wherein rank advancements would be the way to fill those vacancies if they are going to be filled.

I am not certain, very frankly, they should be filled. And I am talking about the 18 Capitol police vacancies now. As I said, I think we have a good police force, and I don't want anyone to think I don't believe that. They have been terrific and done a good job in all aspects

of the problems we have had, with the riots a few years ago and the other incidents since then. I thought they handled themselves very well.

I think what has happened, very honestly, is that we have grown into a situation of having almost 1,200 policemen on the rolls, with general expenses that have increased more than 600 percent in 10 years or less. It has just grown, and it is there. I don't know what we are going to do with it. I don't know whether we need a force that size or not.

I share some of Mr. Traxler's thoughts, wondering if we haven't moved to the era where we can cut down on the number of police. I am not saying fire anybody, but reduce the number of policemen we have on the Hill by attrition.

Mr. Armstrong, do you have any questions?

COMMENDATION

Mr. ARMSTRONG. No; I don't have any further questions. I share your feeling about that, and I also want to comment that within the last few months I have had some contact with people, not Members of the Congress or employees, but just visitors who have called to my attention the treatment that the visitors get in the Capitol area is really outstanding, and, frankly, I have observed the same thing.

For what it is worth, I pass it on; I think the attitude that your men display, particularly the ones who work outdoors, sometimes under adverse circumstances, is really commendable. Not only that they are doing their job, but are interested, and friendly and helpful, and I just wanted to say, good for them.

Chief POWELL. Thank you, sir. Along that line, I might just add that communications that I get regarding the performance of the force is at least 95 to 5 complimentary rather than complaints, and I know it is natural in many cases for people to complain about confrontations with the police, because police officers do get faced with a situation involving traffic violations, and so forth, and it is never very pleasant for any to get a ticket. Some tickets are issued, of course. We have found from experience that if we didn't control it a little bit, then our whole traffic problem would bet out of control, but by and large, our men are told that we are a service organization; we are here to serve not to be served, and that is our goal. I think we have succeeded in getting that across generally to the men.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong this, but the thing that interested me about it, was not that your officers were courteous to the Members, because that would be routine, but the fact they treated the public with the same degree of courtesy, I thought, was outstanding.

Mr. SHIPLEY. Mr. Traxler.

BALANCE BETWEEN OPEN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AND SECURITY

Mr. TRAXLER. I want to second that comment. I think that one of the points we must remember as we consider your personnel and your budget is that we are talking about a rather unique complex. In closed

societies this problem could be handled in a very easy fashion. You just don't let the public in and that solves your problem. You don't have 72 points of entry. We could close the Capitol to the public tomorrow, and that would resolve our security problem.

Chief POWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TRAXLER. You could lay off half your force under those circumstances.

Chief POWELL. Several years ago, I visited, at my expense, I would like to inject, some capitals of the world to just get a picture of what other countries did with their capitol, and I found in Ireland, for instance, no person was admitted to the Irish House of Parliament except being met at the gate by a member and escorted in groups of not exceeding two into the chamber, and no other person could come in to see that member until he personally escorted these two outside the gate.

I immediately wrote cards back to the Sergeants at Arms of the House and Senate that I had found a solution to our problem, to restore the iron fence that is presently around the Congressional Cemetery. Most people don't know this, but years ago our forefathers had an iron fence around the Capitol and there were gates and I read some literature not too long ago where they complained that one of the Members of Congress apparently being disrespectful in the destruction of property had rammed through the Pennsylvania Avenue gate with his team of horses. I am sure we are not going to have the iron fence back. I am not asking for it. But therein is a problem.

We have a wide open democratic society which we all want, but at the same time we want security, and it is hard to balance the two. Mr. SHIPLEY. Anything else?

Mr. TRAXLER. No.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. You are only inviting questions at this time for the Chief, not other matters under the Sergeant at Arms?

Mr. SHIPLEY. We are just questioning the Chief of Police, at this time?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. You are going to take other aspects of the Sergeant at Arms later?

Mr. SHIPLEY. Yes; we will take up Capitol Guide Service, et cetera later.

Chief, we are glad to have you with us, and we may ask some further questions at a later date because we are concerned about the tremenlous increase in the budget over the last few years. We think you are doing a good job and don't criticize you for the job.

CAPITOL GUIDE SERVICE

Mr. SHIPLEY. We will take up the Capitol Guide Service now. Mr. Colley, you may proceed.

Mr. COLLEY. That is not included in our testimony, Mr. Chairman, ause we dont disburse the funds. They are disbursed on the Senate

r. RAIDEN. We usually submit this material for the record. The material follows:]

B3-300 - 77 - 35

1 Supplemental appropriation (Public Law 94-303) for the 5 percent general pay increase for the number of positions a uthorized as of Oct. 1, 1975.

2 Does not include budget estimate submitted for $16,992 for the 4.83 percent general pay increase effective Oct. 1, 1976.

Mr. RAIDEN. That is in the subcommittee print, Mr. Chairman, and although we do make mention of it and put it in on this side, the money is dispensed from the Senate side, and these figures are all obtained from the Senate Finance Office and were coordinated with their finance man yesterday, and those figures are current with the Guide Service. There is no increase in numbers or anything requested in this. Just the usual cost-of-living increases are the only thing there. Mr. SHIPLEY. All right. Thank you, Mr. Raiden.

Do you have any questions, Mr. Armstrong, with anything the Sergeant at Arms has the responsibility for?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes; I do.

Mr. SHIPLEY. Please proceed.

SERGEANT AT ARMS BANK OPERATIONS

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Let me ask this question first. The House bank, of course, is in your jurisdiction, and there are two or three things about that that concerns me. One, there was a series of newspaper stories last year about salary advances or loans by the House bank to Members of the body. Could you describe how that procedure works?

Mr. TRAXLER. May I interject? Does the House have a bank?

Mr. RAIDEN. It is a service organization of the House of Representatives. It is a bank, as such. It is not a chartered bank. We aren't chartered by anyone other than the House of Representatives. We got into this a number of years ago when we had to have routing numbers, and we made application to the American Bankers Association to have a number assigned, and they started trying to find out who we were chartered by and how long we had been there, and so forth, and so our reply to that was we were there actually before the Federal Reserve or before American Bankers, either one, because it has been there ever since the Congress has been there, and it is a service organization of the Congress.

It is referred to as a bank, which it actually isn't. A Member has a right to elect to have an account with the bank. He can have his money put in the bank, and he can disburse it by making withdrawals. Every time he writes a check, he is certifying to his salary, but it is not a bank as such.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is interesting. I didn't know that. I am not concerned about that.

LOANS

Mr. RAIDEN. We have a working arrangement with a bank downtown, actually as far as loans are concerned. We only do the legwork and paperwork. The loans are made by a bank downtown. There is no public moneys or Members' money ever loaned.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Let me ask a related question and then come back to it.

AUDIT BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

As I understand it, the General Accounting Office does make an audit of the bank's operation?

Mr. RAIDEN. Twice a year.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Unlike most GAO reports that audit is not made public; is that correct?

Mr. RAIDEN. That I don't know. We receive a copy of it, and a copy of it goes to the Speaker of the House. I don't suppose any other copies go to anyone else that I know of.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. My understanding is that that audit is not only not routinely sent elsewhere but is treated as a confidential report; that it is not available for public scrutiny. Do you have any information on that?

Mr. RAIDEN. I couldn't answer that question because all I know is we are audited twice a year and there is a report turned in to the House of Representatives to the Speaker. Now what they do with it, I don't know.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Do you know of any reason why the audit report should not be routinely available?