CONTRACT PERSONNEL

Mr. FAZIO. Do you hire contract personnel for some of these moves?

Mr. GUTHRIE. We are coming in with contract personnel and double utilization of the office equipment people with the property people to help do this tremendous movement, and utilizing also I think our building superintendent who helps us at that time. We cannot do it all ourselves.

Mr. COLLEY. Mr. Lewis, I think what you are asking is how we get it all done with what we have normally and what they do after that. We had a meeting with the Building Superintendent and the Architect's people prior to the heavy surge of office relocations. Actually, in Property Supply Service, we told our employees that they could take their annual leave, go to the dentist, get their needs done before a certain date. From that point on, there was no leave granted, that we would be working overtime. We worked weekends, in the evenings, et cetera.

In the Office Equipment Service, we actually do contract with a small number of expert movers to handle the electrical equipment. They work off and on for a couple of weeks. The coordination of the move is done by the Building Superintendent. His staff actually does the move. The property supply people move furniture. The office equipment people move the electrical equipment. For about two weeks, we really just do moves, and the day-to-day tasks may have to go begging.

Very frankly, we got complaints that we weren't doing the dayto-day things. It was impossible to do everything at once. Since the moves were completed at the end of the first week in January, we have been engaged in the catch-up operation.

Mr. LEWIS. Oh, they are completed by the first week of January? Mr. COLLEY. I believe we finished the last one on January 7th. The scheduling of the moves is done by the Building Superintendent. He coordinates the property people, the office equipment people, the telephone people, all of that. The big reason we were late this year was the lame duck session. The retiring Members could not get out of their offices early enough to get us started.

The day-to-day workload is there. We are settling back into it. We really try to accommodate in our Property Office without getting extra people, and we do make a sacrifice. Our employees made a sacrifice.

Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Hightower, do you have a question?

PROPERTY INVENTORY

Mr. HIGHTOWER. Mr. Chairman, as a new Member, I wanted to inquire: Does the Clerk have responsibility for the property inventory?

Mr. GUTHRIE. Yes.

Mr. HIGHTOWER. Is all the furniture and equipment in the offices under the control of the Clerk of the House?

Mr. GUTHRIE. Yes. It is all numbered, each piece.

Mr. HIGHTOWER. There was an interesting story in the Post this morning about the tremendous amount of excess furniture that is

in the GSA inventory. Do we have a comparable situation with our House property?

Mr. GUTHRIE. We have

Mr. HIGHTOWER. Do we have excess equipment or furniture stacked up in a warehouse somewhere because its scratched or broken or something, and it just sits there and remains in inventory?

Mr. GUTHRIE. No, sir. It doesn't work that way here. We have additional people coming; we have additional committees being created, select committees that you have as a changeover of Congresses. With 80 new Members, they may or may not have the same total numbers game until we get cranked up. We don't have warehouses outside. We have rooms within the complex trying to have the proper furniture. We are not in a situation like GSA is.

Mr. HIGHTOWER. You do have a modest amount of inventory above your actual needs but not any excess that is taking up storage space?

Mr. GUTHRIE. Only-what we have in storage is only for the needed transfers, anticipated needs. We have our own furniture shops to refinish the type of furniture here, also, in the underground garage.

Mr. HIGHTOWER. As equipment is worn out, it is taken off our inventory. What do you do with it then? Is that sold?

Mr. GUTHRIE. The House itself does not sell that. That is inventoried to the General Services Administration on a transfer. The monies received from that are placed in the general fund of the Treasury.

Mr. HIGHTOWER. It is no longer on the House inventory?

Mr. GUTHRIE. That is right.

Mr. HIGHTOWER. Some of the items GSA has may have been in the House at one time but is no longer in our inventory? Is it sent back to them?

Mr. GUTHRIE. You are speaking electrical equipment?

Mr. HIGHTOWER. Equipment and furniture.

Mr. GUTHRIE. The furniture would be? No. Some years ago the only time we were allowed to transfer furniture was when the Library of Congress-this committee authorized the Clerk to allow the Librarian of Congress to have first choice on any additional furniture. At that time we were remodeling the Cannon Office Building and the Longworth Building.

NEW EQUIPMENT PROGRAM

Mr. COLLEY. Mr. Fazio, I would like to add one thing. Under the new equipment program, where Members in effect lease their equipment from the Clerk rather than from the vendor, we also trade equipment. We are actually-because we own the equipment rather than the vendor owning it, we are going to be in the marketing business of trying to encourage Members' offices and committees to take good used equipment, because it is cheaper.

We have a constant review going on in the office equipment service. When equipment is to the point that it cannot be repaired it does go to GSA and is disposed of under the normal Federal disposal laws and regulations. If it can be repaired and recirculated into

the government, it will be. If it is not, it would be offered to schools, hospitals, charitable organizations, that sort of thing before anything is sold as surplus.

None of the GSA furniture you read about in the paper ever belonged to the House of Representatives. We re-use our furniture, refinish it.

For example, in the summer we get a great influx of interns. Every office needs one more desk. When they leave at the end of the summer, that goes back into the storeroom.

Mr. HIGHTOWER. Usually, we get one more chair. We don't have room for a desk.

Mr. COLLEY. In any event, we have to anticipate those needs. When Annex II was authorized, we had very little furniture for that building. In the past few years there has been a gradual purchase of some furniture, a gradual refinishing of some furniture. We now have that building almost furnished. When you get to the furniture estimate, you see it is down again this year.

Mr. HIGHTOWER. I am glad to know that situation, Mr. Chair

man.

AVAILABLE OFFICE SPACE

Mr. FAZIO. I might point out there was an architectural review of the new Senate Office Building in the Wall Street Journal today, which indicated that even the new building has office space allocations for personnel that are short of the average business space allocations. Your point about where your interns fit during the summer is indicative of how even more crowded House employees are. The article noted that a number of corporate personnel and corporate space managers for major U.S. corporations surveyed the office space available to the House of Representatives; and they were appalled at the working conditions under which many people are forced to do a job for the American people. I would like to have the article put in the record.

[The information follows:]

[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 14, 1983]

CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES FOUND OUT OF DATE

(By Leonard M. Apcar)

WASHINGTON.-When freshman Rep. Jim Slattery arrived at his Capitol Hill office, the first thing he noticed was the majestic view of the Washington Monument. Then he saw the broken desks, the broken chairs and the cockroaches.

But the Kansas Democrat fared better than another newcomer to this session. When Rep. Bill Richardson entered his office, he discovered that he didn't even have a desk. "They warned us" that the facilities "would be horrible," says an aide to the New Mexico Democrat, but "it's a little worse than I thought."

That was the impression, too, of a group of corporate executives who recently spent a week studying House office operations. They concluded that in this computer age, the House is still in the Dark Ages. The 11 executives, who specialize in interior design, personnel policy and office automation, were horrified by what they saw: a hodgepodge of furniture and equipment, sacks of mail answered by hand and offices so cramped that in one, an automated printer was operating in a congressman's private bathroom.

"What I expected was just like you see on TV," says Sandra Ragan, an interior designer here, "a spacious reception area and a fantastic office with a view of the

Capitol dome." Such offices are rare, although the situation is somewhat better on the Senate side of the Capitol.

Bringing the corporate executives to Capitol Hill was the idea of the Congressional Management Foundation, a small private group here that offers seminars and services to congressional offices. Xerox Corp., Sears and Roebuck & Co. and Mobil Oil Corp. helped pay for their visit and will also contribute to the cost of distributing the experts' recommendations to each member of Congress.

Nobody expects any quick changes. "We've been in a substandard condition" for years, says Elliott Carroll, executive assistant to the Architect of the Capitol. The House "desperately needs" more space, he says, but the politicians are loathe to propose constructing a fourth House office building so soon after the Senate spent $137.5 million for its recently opened third building.

SLOW MAIL PROCESSING

In their visit to the House, the executives found that many offices are poorly lit, and drab paint or dark wood paneling make things worse. Large, Federal-style furniture takes up precious floor space; many pieces are stylistically mismatched or unsuited to the task. "Private" discussions frequently occur in the not-so-private corridors for lack of a conference room. Typically, an office has a dozen or so staffers wedged in a space the interior designers figure is more suitable for eight people. "I hadn't any conception of the environment in which Congress would be asked to do its work," says Alan B. Cox, who owns an interior-design company here.

As for the House's office equipment, "we never saw anything that was state of the art," says Robert McCabe, an assistant divisional comptroller for General Motors Corp. Mail from voters back home "is big business here," he says, but is processed far too slowly. Sacks of mail arrive in House offices four times a day, amounting to more than 170 million pieces last year.

INTENSELY LOYAL STAFF

The automation experts were surprised that more House offices don't take full advantage of computer technology. They were also dismayed that personal computers haven't been officially cleared yet. Of the 435 members last year, about 50 didn't have any type of computer service. About 85 had a word-processor or microcomputer to ease the mail flow, store voter lists, write speeches and search for data. The majority of members have a less sophisticated but increasingly costly time-sharing system that helps move the mail a bit. But it is used mostly to check votes, research legislation and keep track of when federal grant applications are due.

The executives say too much time and money are invested in clerks pounding out letters on electric typewriters. "All too many are hand-typed," says Richard Sheer, a management analyst for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. In one office, a congressman changed about 30% of the letters before he signed them, which meant those letters had to be re-typed.

The personnel experts were equally aghast. Job roles of House staffers are rarely defined, most workers haven't any privacy, and regular job-performance reviews are rare. Weekend and late-night work are routine. In industry, the personnel executives say, unions would protest, or one would surely get organized.

Despite such conditions, the executives found a lot of staff camaraderie. “It is a very special world here," concludes Elaine Reuben, a Washington personnel consultant. Staffers are intensely loyal to the member for whom they work, dedicated to the task and seemingly grateful for the experience. Says Elyse Kaplan-White, director of organization behavior for Marriott Corp.: "The attitude I found was, 'the top aide may be a monster, but I'm grateful to be working for this pittance' " because the job is rewarding and hard to get.

Short of another House building, the interior-design experts suggest lighter shades of paint to improve office lighting and sound-absorbing dividers to offer some privacy and reduce noise. They recommend more space-saving furniture and more efficient furniture-acquisition procedures. Currently, politicians who are moving in often just grab unclaimed furniture left in the halls by departing members. “If you see something you like, you can take it," says an aide to a freshman member.

The personnel executives emphasize that a "managerial agenda" is important in a member's office. Each House member receives about $366,650 a year to pay for staff, plus an average of about $122,000 for travel, office equipment and other expenses. "It isn't much of a budget, so you have to manage it to maximize it," says Marriott's Mrs. Kaplan-White.

The automation experts recommend increased use of computers, and the Congress now settling in does seem more inclined to automate.

Still, there isn't any substitute for the staff member who can perform coolly under strained conditions. When she was a freshman member in 1979, Democratic Rep. Geraldine Ferraro of New York discovered that Meredith Akerstein had the perfect qualifications to greet visitors and handle the unforeseen daily chores. Her previous job was as a tour guide at the San Diego zoo.

SPACE UTILIZATION STATISTICS

Mr. FAZIO. Also, I would like for the Record the space utilization statistics for the Senate and House Office Buildings.

[The information follows:]

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 24, 1983.

Space Utilization Statistics 1983, Senate and House Office BUILDINGS The tabulation of areas and occupancy provided last year and found on page 261, Part II of the record of hearings on Legislative Branch Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1983, were expressed in Assignable Square Feet, as defined by the Building Owners and Managers Association. The tabulation which follows is expressed in net square feet, as defined by the same association, which excludes toilets, closets, internal corridors, etc. The revision has been made in order to permit comparison with GSA occupancy standards which are also expressed in net square feet. The GSA table of space utilization standards, which also appears below has been revised within the past few months, reducing the average area occupancy standard for Executive Branch employees from 150 net square feet per employee to 135 net square feet. This compares to current space occupancy in the Senate Office Buildings of 133 net square feet per employee and in the House Office Buildings of 96 net square feet per employee.