in the face of these increased food costs of 21 percent last year and pay-roll increases at the rate of $15,500 per year, we are still showing about the same results that we showed last year, or in previous years. Mr. JOHNSON of Indiana. Do you manage the Senate restaurant also?

Mr. BROCKWELL. No, sir; I do not manage the Senate restaurant.

AUDIT OF HOUSE RESTAURANT ACCOUNTS

Mr. O'NEAL. What about the audit made of your accounts? The General Accounting Office does that how often?

Mr. LYNN. Twice a year.

Mr. O'NEAL. And where are those audits lodged after they make them? Do they send them up to the Speaker of the House?

Mr. LYNN. No, sir; they send them to the Architect of the Capitol. Mr. O'NEAL. And they are available and open to anybody who wants to see them?

Mr. LYNN. Yes; and are on record in the General Accounting Office. Mr. PLOESER. Now, about this cafeteria over here in the Office Building: You pay no rent, of course, or light, or heat, or power, either. If we applied your 11-percent ratio for those expenditures, we would have had $208 loss on the cafeteria for the 6 months July 1 to December 31.

Mr. O'NEAL. If you applied depreciation?

Mr. PLCESER. If you applied the percentage of 11 percent of the gross income for your rent, heat, and light.

Mr. ANDERSON. How about depreciation?

Mr. PLOESER. No depreciation. My opinion-and, of course, everybody has a different opinion on food, I realize-but my opinion is that the food in the cafeteria is far superior to the food in the House restaurant, which is not even comparable in preparation, in my opinion. Also, it serves breakfast and probably has a better breakfast trade than have in the House.

you

Mr. BROCKWELL. Oh, yes; much better.

Mr. PLOESER. And it has a heavier luncheon trade, too.

Mr. BROCKWELL. It has more customers; yes.

Mr. PLOESER. And its prices appear to be less; I do not know whether they are, or not.

Mr. BROCKWELL. While they may appear to be, I will give you one illustration of difference. In the cafeteria we sell the rolls, butter, and cream—that is, extra cream—and the jams, honey, and items of that type. In the House restaurant we give them away.

Mr. JOHNSON of Indiana. Where do you give away the jams and honey? I have not run across that.

Mr. BROCKWELL. Well, come in to breakfast, Mr. Johnson, and we will serve it to you then.

Mr. PLOESER. The point I am making is this: I do not think there would be any disagreement on the fact that the House Office Building cafeteria should be a profitable venture. It is not yet. It would be in the red if you had to do what the normal restauranteur has to do, and that is to pay all of his expenses. You will probably go in the blue in the next 6 months when you get your heavy trade. Now, if

that sort of operation can be profitable, why cannot we convert the House restaurant to principally a cafeteria service?

Mr. BROCKWELL. We can. I do not know whether you were here, or not, when I made this statement and recommended eventually that we do that, or at least make a considerable portion of our facilities here in the Capitol cafeteria and counter service.

MAINTENANCE, HOUSE OFFICE BUILDINGS

Mr. O'NEAL. We will take up now the item for maintenance of House Office Buildings, page 79. The appropriation for 1943 was $391,760, and you are requesting for 1944, $418,005.

We will be very glad to have you make a statement about that, Mr. Lynn.

Mr. LYNN. Before you proceed to House Office Buildings item, may I make a short statement here for the record with reference to my entire regular organization?

Mr. O'NEAL. We will be very glad to have it.

TURN-OVER IN PERSONNEL

Mr. LYNN. The regular year-around force under the Office of the Architect of the Capitol consists of 915 employees. During the fiscal year 1942, there were 313 separations from the service, or one-third of the entire force. Of these separations, 129 were in regular classified positions, and 184 were in patronage positions. In adddition, 20 employees were inducted into the military service. There were 302 appointments made.

The turn-over in the regular force was about 15 percent; the turnover in the patronage force was about 150 percent.

Of the 915 employees, about three-quarters are men, and one-quarter are women. Ninety percent of the women, are charwomen.

Of the men, about 250 are engineers and mechanics. Over onequarter of the engineering and mechanical force are within the ages of 18 to 38. About one-third of these men between 18 and 38 are engineers and mechanics at the Capitol Power Plant.

If occupational deferments are not secured for a substantial number of these employees, then the work of this office, particularly at the Capitol Power Plant, is likely to be seriously hampered.

I wanted you to know the situation in regard to our employees.

DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATE

Mr. O'NEAL. Yes; now, the increase which you are asking for 1944 is made up of two items, is that correct-within-grade promotions, $1,660, and legislative changes in salary ranges, $27,085?

Mr. LYNN. That is correct.

Mr. O'NEAL. I will ask that you put in the record the break-down of appropriation items on page 46.

Mr. LYNN. In explanation of the items making up the estimate for 1944, the first item is personal services, $353,390.

For 1943, $327,145 was appropriated, so there is a net increase of $26,245 as follows:

$1,660 to complete in 1944 the 1943 within-grade promotions authorized by the Act of August 1, 1941.

$27,085 the balance of the increase is to meet the legislative changes in salary ranges prescribed by the Act of August 1, 1942.

Of the total regular force of 318 employees, the salary rates of 47 mechanics and laborers and all 145 charwomen were increased under this Act. The change of the charwomen's rate from 50 cents to 65 cents per hour, alone, accounts for approximately 80 percent of the increased salary cost.

These increases, totaling $28,745, are offset by a decrease of $2,500 occurring in the temporary labor item which is decreased from $5,000 to $2,500.

Mr. O'NEAL. I do not quite understand why you could not make a reduction on this personal service item, with the turn-over you have. Your lapse item must be considerably larger. Now, you are asking for increased funds to take care of the legislative changes and withingrade promotions?

Mr. LYNN. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. With the turn-over, why is not the lapse rate so great that there can be a substantial reduction in the amount for personal services? It seems to me that naturally follows.

Mr. HENLOCK. We cannot deny that if identical employment conditions obtain next year as have obtained so far this year, there will be lapse savings. Of course, if there were to be any saving above our needs, it would not be used for other than salary purposes. Mr. O'NEAL. It would revert to the Treasury?

Mr. HENLOCK. This year, it would be used to help meet the 10 percent additional compensation cost, for one thing.

Mr. O'NEAL. What do you anticipate will be unused of the 1943 appropriation during the fiscal year 1943?

Mr. HENLOCK. Our lapse savings may run as high as $10,000, but in 1943, the entire saving will be required to help meet the cost of the legislative changes in salary ranges, which for 1943 will amount to $24,778, and for which no funds have been provided.

Mr. O'NEAL. And how many separations did you have?

Mr. HENLOCK. Mr. Chairman, a somewhat similar condition exists here as was pointed out in the case of the Capitol Building and repairs appropriation. As you will note, we are making expenditures for temporary labor at the rate of $43,500 per year, whereas our fullyear allotment for such labor (exclusive of the $2,500 extra allowance for labor for moving Members-none of which was expended in the first 6 months) was only $2,500. The large excess cost is being paid out of vacancy and other lapse savings. Due to shortage of help on the regular force-both classified and patronage we are having to use these savings to hire extra employees on the temporary roll to fill in, until qualified employees for the regular roll vacancies can be found and patronage vacancies are filled by the committee.

As has already been indicated, the legislative changes in salary ranges prescribed by the act of August 1, 1942, are costing us $24,778 for 1943, and, of course, as yet no supplemental funds have been appropriated to meet this cost. At the rate our expenditures are running, even using our lapse savings, we will need a deficiency appropriation of from $15,000 to $20,000 for this item for 1943. And since no part of the 10 percent additional compensation can be absorbed in 1943, we will also need a deficiency appropriation for that item.

Mr. O'NEAL. In this amount of $418,005, the total increase for personal services requested for 1944 is $28,745. Now, assuming you are going to have this turn-over in 1944, which you know you will have, how much would you say that would represent in dollars and cents for lapses?

Mr. HENLOCK. I would judge about $10,000 in 1944. Based upon our expenditure of $167,184 for the first half of 1943, and taking into consideration within-grade promotions that will fall due in the second half and the fact that the legislative changes in salary ranges have to be met for 6 months, instead of 5 months, in the second half, and assuming that employment conditions will remain substantially the same, the total expenditure for personal services for 1943, exclusive of the 10 percent additional compensation, would be about $339,000, plus the $2,500 for moving Members.

Adding to the $339,000 figure, $1,660 to complete the 1943 withingrade promotions in 1944 and $2,257 for an additional month (July) for the legislative changes in salary ranges, would make the total personal services expenditure for 1944 about $343,000 or $344,000.

Mr. ANDERSON. In the general item for personal services, in your opinion it would not cripple your efforts, then, to take off $10,000 there? Mr. HENLOCK. Based upon the condition, of course, that the chairman has assumed that identical employment conditions will obtain. That is $10,000 under the 1944 estimate figure. In other words, a

reduction of the 1944 estimate for personal services from $353,390 to $343,390.

Mr. O'NEAL. I understand because you have the within-grade promotions?

Mr. HENLOCK. Yes, sir; and the other items mentioned.

Mr. O'NEAL. Assuming those are granted?

Mr. HENLOCK. Yes, sir. But I feel I should stress that a substantial part of the lapse savings come from vacancies in the patronage positions. We have always felt that these positions should be available for Members of Congress to fill at any or all times they may wish. And, of course, if the lapse savings are cut from the appropriation as proposed, then the patronage positions cannot be filled continuously throughout the year, but only to the extent that the amount available under the appropriation will permit.

Mr. O'NEAL. Now, you have an item of travel expense, $25; transportation of things, $10; communication service, $10; annual painting, $30,000.

REDUCTION IN ESTIMATE FOR ANNUAL PAINTING

How necessary is that annual painting item?

Mr. LYNN. Mr. Chairman, in regard to that item, I think we could very well cut it in half. As in the case of the Capitol Building, the usual amount of painting cannot be carried forward, now that the Congress is remaining in continuous session.

Mr. O'NEAL. That is more in line with your experience up to December 31, 1942?

Mr. LYNN. Yes. However, I do not recommend reducing the estimate below $15,000 as that amount of work will have to be done.

Mr. ANDERSEN. That seemed to me to be a pretty heavy item to carry this year, in regard to painting.

Mr. O'NEAL. Yes. He says this can be cut in half.
Mr. ANDERSEN. I am glad to see that cut.

ELEVATOR REPAIRS

Mr. O'NEAL. How about elevator repairs; do you feel it would be unsafe to reduce that?

Mr. LYNN. I would like our elevator engineer, Mr. Sommer, to discuss with the committee, the elevator item.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Sommer, we would like you to make a statement as to the condition of the elevators in the House Office Buildings, for which there is an annual repair item of $4,000, and discuss the adequacy or inadequacy of that amount.

Mr. SOMMER. In both House Office Buildings there are altogether 20 elevators and 1 lift. Of those 20 elevators, 512 elevators, I would say, have been completely remodeled during the last fiscal year. The rest of the equipment is in fairly new and good condition. I would say it is in safe condition now.

But the New House Office Building elevators are gradually getting older and older. I think they are about 10 years old now, and some day in the future we will have to make some adjustments or some replacements on the controllers and other equipment. We have no leveling devices on those elevators, and it is very hard to keep the