OFFICE OF SERGEANT AT ARMS SUPPLEMENTAL FOR 78 ADDITIONAL POLICE POSITIONS Mr. ANDREWS. The first of the supplemental items is that for the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, a request for $505,260. As I understand it, this relates to House Resolution 464 of last May, authorizing the employment of additional members of the police force on the House side. As I understand it, Mr. Johnson, House Resolution 464, while it was dated or agreed to before we reported the fiscal year 1968 appropriation bill, we did not make that resolution permanent law, nor did we provide the funds under your appropriation item for the salaries of the 78 additional police positions. Is that correct? Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Johnson, or Chief Powell, were these 78 positions to be strictly career rather than patronage? Chief POWELL. Yes, they were. Mr. ANDREWS. Has it worked out that way in all instances? Chief POWELL. Yes, it has. Mr. ANDREWS. How many of the 78 positions do you have filled? Incidentally, how many of them were privates and how many otherwise? Chief POWELL. We have positions for an addition of 73 privates, four sergeants, and one captain. They have actually all been filled except three which have been allocated. We employed some men who have found higher salaried positions elsewhere and have left us and at the present time we have four who have been recruited as replacements and they will be on the rolls within a few days. Mr. ANDREWS. So, of the 78, you have 75 on board now? Chief POWELL. Yes, or allocated to be. Mr. ANDREWS. And you expect to have the other three filled? Chief POWELL. Yes. They have been approved. Most of these men are retired military men around 39 to 40 years of age. Mr. ANDREWS. What is the total estimated 12-month cost of this resolution insofar as salaries are concerned, using current rates? Chief POWELL. $528,468 for salaries. Mr. ANDREWS. Why is that more than the $505,260 ? Chief POWELL. The $505,260 did not include the pay raise last year that was granted after this estimate was made. Mr. ANDREWS. As I understand it, you have been paying salaries in accordance with the resolution under the miscellaneous expense item of the contingent fund of the House rather than from your appropriation. Is that right, Mr. Johnson? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Mr. ANDREWS. That being so, would it be the plan, Mr. Jennings, to continue that pay arrangement for the balance of this fiscal year? Mr. JENNINGS. No, sir. We have asked for a supplemental appropriation for the pay increases. Mr. ANDREWS. You have been paying them out of the contingent fund but you want the supplemental to reimburse the contingent fund; is that right? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. Mr. JENNINGS. That is assuming you have language that will make this permanent law. Mr. ANDREWS. That being so, there would be no need to appropriate the $505,260 under the Sergeant at Arms? Mr. JENNINGS. No. Mr. ANDREWS. Chief Powell, under a resolution passed by the House last May, 78 additional positions for the Police Department on the House side were approved by the House? Chief POWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. That resolution provided for the employment of 78 policemen. About the first of July, 1967, you began employing policemen under the authority of that resolution? Chief POWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. At the present time you have employed 75 of the authorized 78? Chief POWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. Since the time the first police were employed and started working they have been paid from the contingency fund under the Clerk of the House; is that right? Chief POWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. You are requesting, Mr. Johnson, as the Sergeant at Arms, $505,260 in the second supplemental appropriation bill for 1968 and the money requested will be used to reimburse the contingency fund of the Clerk. Is that correct? Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ANDREWS. Would you need transfer language to do that? Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Jennings, if the committee appropriates the $505,260 would that money be used to reimburse the contingency fund? Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir; that is correct. HOUSE RESOLUTION 464 Mr. ANDREWS. We shall at this point in the record insert House Resolution 464. (The resolution follows:) H. RES. 464 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S., Resolved, That, in addition to the number of officers and members of the Capitol Police and of personnel detailed to the Capitol Police from the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia existing on the date of adoption of this resolution, there are hereby authorized to be established seventy-three positions of private, four positions of sergeant, and one position of captain on the Capitol Police for duty under the House of Representatives. Appointments to such additional positions shall be made by the Capitol Police Board, subject to the prior approval of the Committee on House Administration, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties of the positions. The compensation for such additional positions shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House of Representatives until otherwise provided by law. Mr. ANDREWS. Any questions on that item? Mr. REIFEL. No questions. CAPITOL POLICE GENERAL EXPENSES Mr. ANDREWS. Now we shall take up joint items, Capitol Police, general expenses, for which you are requesting $44,900. Is this item directly related to the item we have just been talking about in relation to the 78 additional policemen? Chief POWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. What is the relationship? Chief POWELL. $3,354 of that is for laundry expenses; $33,540 is for uniforms and equipment; and an additional $8,000 is for special equipment, some of which has no direct relationship to these additional 78 men. If we could go off the record on that. Mr. ANDREWS. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. ANDREWS. All of the $44,900, except $8,000, is for uniforms, laundry, et cetera in connection with the 78 additional policemen? Chief POWELL. Yes. Mr. ANDREWS. $8,000 is for classified material which you have discussed with the committee. Chief POWELL. Yes, sir. HOUSE RESOLUTION 1064 Mr. ANDREWS. Did the House recently adopt a resolution covering this additional expense in some fashion? Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir. Here it is, House Resolution 1064. Mr. ANDREWs. It is noted that the House on February 28, 1968, passed a resolution providing that there should be paid out of the contingent fund of the House of Representatives such sums as may be necessary to purchase uniforms, equipment, and general expenses of the Capitol Police. That is House Resolution 1064. Chief POWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. We will insert that resolution in the record at this point. (The resolution follows:) H. RES. 1064 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S., Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House of Representatives said sums as may be necessary to purchase uniforms, equipment, and general expenses of the Capitol Police. Mr. ANDREWS. Have these items been paid for out of the contingency fund of the House? Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. And if this money is appropriated, will it be used to reimburse the contingency fund? Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. How much has actually been expended as a result of that resolution? Mr. GIBSON. Those bills are in process. Mr. ANDREWs. Insert that in the record. (The information follows:) $5,836.59 has been expended as of this date. Mr. ANDREWS. You estimate these items will cost approximately $44,900? Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, based on the request of the Sergeant at Arms. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Some of the bills will not come in for a few months. Mr. ANDREWS. If the bills are being paid from the contingency fund, would we need to appropriate any of the $44,900 at this time for the current year? Mr. JENNINGS. Yes; I think we would. If this were the only item that the contingency fund was bearing I don't think there is any doubt but that we could absorb it. However, there are a number of other resolutions that I will enumerate later which will indicate that a combination of all of them amounts to a sizable amount of money. Mr. ANDREWs. As to both of these police items we have been discussing, what is the provision in the fiscal year 1969 budget to encompass these items of expense beginning July 1 next? Mr. JENNINGS. You are talking about all the items? Mr. ANDREWS. I am talking about the items of expense incident to the 78 new police positions. You are asking for a supplemental to take care of the expenses incident to the appointment of these new positions for fiscal year 1968? Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir. Mr. ANDREWS. The question is, will these expenses that you are requesting in the supplemental which is before us today be included in the 1969 budget request that you will submit to the committee later? Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, for fiscal year 1969. Mr. ANDREWS. Do you ask that the resolution be made permanent? Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir. COMMITTEE EMPLOYEES Mr. ANDREWs. The next item is for $125,000 for committee employees, which I understand are the so-called regular standing committee staffs as distinguished from special investigative employees who are paid from separate funds under the contingency fund. Is that correct? Mr. JENNINGS. Yes. Mr. ANDREWS. Will you tell us something about the need for this request and the rate of expenditure? Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, we have been increasing the expendi tures yearly and monthly as far as committee employees have been concerned. Our budget estimate for last year was based on the experience of previous years. You will recall that we discussed this when we were before the committee before, and I have a chart prepared here that shows the expenditures over the years for the months of July through February, which are the last figures we have. Starting in 1966, from July through February for committee employees we spent $2,602,489.06. For 1967 for a comparable period we spent $2,773,586.45. From July through February of 1968 we have expended $3,019,437.41. I might point out that there are now 269 employees that are being paid from the standing committee budget. Mr. ANDREWS. The regular appropriation for fiscal year 1968 for this item was $4,300,000. Was any reduction made in the request in connection with the regular 1968 bill? Mr. JENNINGS. No; not in this item. Mr. ANDREWS. In other words, the situation is that you are having more committee employees than you anticipated and for which appropriations were made? Mr. JENNINGS. That is correct. Mr. ANDREWS. And that is a matter over which you have no control? Mr. JENNINGS. I have absolutely no control. I could point out that a certain amount of this is due to pay increases over the year. For instance, we paid $419,205.22 for 268 employees during the month of December. That was up considerably but that included the retroactive pay for October and November. EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED Mr. ANDREWS. Briefly, what are the provisions of permanent law with respect to what the standing committees can do, first in the way of the numbers they can hire; and secondly as to the salary ranges they are allowed to pay? Mr. JENNINGS. I will have to supply the individual ones for the record, but they are all provided by resolutions other than the employees of the Appropriations Committee to which the numerical limit. does not apply. I have a chart here. Mr. ANDREWS. We will insert that chart at this point in the record. (The chart follows:) STANDING COMMITTEE EMPLOYEES 1 [Other than Committee on Appropriations, as to which numerical limit does not apply] 1 Including the Committee on Ethics (H. Res. 418, the 90th Cong., 1st sess.) as a standing committee. Note: This is the so-called regular roll only. Employees under special investigative funds-and virtually every standing committee has some- -are paid from special and select committee funds. There are no numerical limits; the amount of money is the principal limiting factor. |