Informal eateries and food vendors appeared in the Capitol in the 1800s, arising from the need Members of Congress had for meals, snacks, and beverages during long and unpredictable legislative workdays. For many years, this need was especially great because dining options in the surrounding Capitol Hill neighborhoods were limited. Efficiency has been a primary goal for the House and Senate restaurants from their inception through the current day, as this helps facilitate legislative and representational work. The House and Senate soon began to exercise some degree of oversight over these eateries, which were typically run by individuals. By the middle of the nineteenth century, each chamber operated its own restaurants. As Congress grew, and as House and Senate office buildings were added to the Capitol complex, additional eateries became incorporated into the restaurant systems. Each chamber today retains oversight over its own restaurants, but the House and the Senate each utilize private food service contractors to manage the day-to-day operations in their restaurants. The history of how the restaurant systems were incorporated into congressional entities, and how they later split off into private entities, helps explain the unique arrangements the restaurants still maintain with House and Senate committees and other congressional offices. Over time, many of the challenges facing the restaurant systems have remained similar, including concerns about restaurant finances, facilities, food services provided, and employee wages and benefits. Because the House and Senate restaurants operate within a unique congressional environment, information particular to their history may be useful for discussions about their current and future operations. On-site dining at the Capitol quickly became desirable, if not a necessity, for Members of Congress working in Washington, DC, while it transformed into the nation's capital city. Historical records from 1828 indicate that prepared food was available for sale by private restauranteurs in the Capitol while Congress was in session, and the sale of these refreshments was supervised by the Commissioner of Public Buildings, as instructed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. Around the 1830s or 1840s, separate eating establishments were established for each chamber, and this operational division continues today. By the early 1900s, quicker dining options, like lunch counter service, were being introduced in the House and Senate restaurants to meet the needs of busy Members, staff, and visitors. As Congress grew, demands for additional restaurant space were met with periodic renovations and expansions or the creation of new dining facilities. When Congress agreed to build an extension of the east central front of the Capitol in 1955, the plans incorporated a new private dining room for Representatives and one for Senators, which opened in January 1962. New cafeterias and dining facilities were also built into the plans for each House and Senate office building as it was constructed. Carryout food service was first made available in both Cannon and Longworth House Office Buildings in early 1953 to help alleviate continued crowding during peak lunch hours and to accommodate the need for fast dining options. Table 1 displays the congressional entities that have been involved in House restaurant management. Independent restauranteurs provided the earliest dining for the House, and decisions related to the restaurants during the 1800s were made, at different times, by the Speaker of the House, the Commissioner of Public Buildings, the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, and the Committee on Accounts. The restauranteur was able to set menu prices and keep any profits made from sales, but he was required to pay the House a flat fee for "the privilege of keeping the restaurant of the House." As part of the Capitol facilities, the additional resources required to run the restaurants, like coal, gas, and, electricity, were provided by Congress, despite the objection of some Members. The use of Capitol space to house the restaurants may help explain why the Speaker charged the Commissioner of Public Buildings to oversee the other aspects of restaurant administration in 1828, and granted the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) similar authority from 1940-1971. Today, the AOC still oversees the general maintenance of the House restaurant facilities. As the number of Members and staff in the House grew, so did the expectations for its restaurants. From 1921 to 1947, the House restaurants were under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Accounts, and, since 1947, the restaurants have generally been under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration. The growth of congressional operations, as well as the specialized nature of restaurant management, led the House to create the Select Committee on the House Restaurant, which oversaw the restaurant system from July 1969 through 1974. Around the turn of the twentieth century, a series of problems with the House restaurant led to calls for greater dining oversight, with some advocating that the House fully take over and operate its own dining services. In 1904, the House rejected the idea of running its own restaurants, but other attempts to improve the restaurants faltered, and by 1921, the private restauranteur was removed and the restaurant was operated by the Committee on Accounts. Many of the complaints during this era included issues with the House dining facilities, noting that they were too small, dirty, and lacked the modern amenities needed to operate efficiently. To address these concerns, the House dining room became exclusively for use by Members of the House, an additional dining room opened in 1908 with the completion of the Cannon House Office Building, and the Speaker authorized a full restaurant renovation in 1911. Despite the improved facilities, food and management problems persisted. The restaurant manager was unable to turn a profit and customers lamented the "marked deterioration in service and quality of food" from changes he initiated to recoup lost income. Some observers thought that the financial troubles stemmed from the ban of liquor sales in the restaurant, which were "formerly its main source of revenue." Others believed that the restaurant struggled before the ban was in place, noting that "Terrapin Tom" Murray, who served as House restauranteur from 1892 to 1897, "was extremely popular with his customers and ruined himself financially trying to conduct the place according to the suggestions he received." When the Committee on Accounts fully assumed oversight and executive management responsibilities for the House restaurants in 1921, funds for employee salaries and other expenses not fully defrayed by restaurant profits were paid out of the contingent fund of the House. Some Members worried that the House had undertaken a venture that could never be profitable and would cost the government money. After the House took over the operation of its restaurants, food quality did apparently improve; one newspaper claimed, "If it is true that 'men fight on their stomachs,' then good legislation ought to result from the present session because special care has been taken that the members shall be well fed and satisfactorily fed." Several new dining options became available to serve Members, staff, and visitors in the Capitol and in the House office buildings by the mid-twentieth century, yet these additional facilities did not adequately meet the needs of the House. During the 84 th Congress (1955-1956), the Committee on House Administration established a Special Subcommittee on the House Restaurant to study restaurant space needs. The subcommittee recommended an extension to the east central front of the Capitol, in which a new private dining room for House Members (and a separate one for Senators) opened during January 1962. The House restaurant system, overall, struggled to break even. Many of the financial problems were tied to the restaurants' operating hours, which often extended beyond the times the House was in session. As a result, dining revenues were not sufficient to cover the labor costs associated with keeping the restaurants open. Some attempts to improve restaurant finances involved menu price increases, yet these were generally not enough to offset the increases in costs. Those familiar with the restaurants noted that House restaurant workers were paid higher wages than workers in comparable private restaurants, although some Members maintained that restaurant workers were still paid too little. House restaurant finances were particularly impacted by measures that affected the wages and benefits of House employees. Often, the smaller eateries, like the coffee shops, carry-outs, and vending machines, and catering services, would generate revenue for the House restaurant system, but not enough to offset losses from other facilities in the system. Even when the restaurants did turn a profit, some news accounts suggested that the House restaurant system was propped up through taxpayer subsidies. Table 2 displays the congressional entities that have been involved with Senate restaurant management. The Hole in the Wall, also known as the Senate Club, was the first restaurant in the Senate, set up in a small, circular room accessible through the old Senate Post Office. It began as an informal eatery sometime before the mid-1830s, where the Sergeant at Arms would bring in food made at home by his wife to serve as luncheon fare. At some point before it closed in 1857, expenses related to the Hole in the Wall were paid for out of the Senate contingency fund. A newspaper article from 1881 stated that the president pro tempore would review applicants for new Senate restaurant vendors and that "[u]nder the rules of the Senate the Vice President has control of the restaurant." The Standing Rules of the Senate from 1884 indicate that the Senate Committee on Rules was responsible for the Senate restaurant as part of the committee's broader role in regulating the properties on the Senate side of the Capitol. That year, the Senate also adopted a more comprehensive set of rules for the Senate facilities, stating that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, under the direction of the Presiding Officer, would enforce any related directives made by the Committee on Rules. Beginning September 15, 1942, a joint resolution agreed to by Congress transferred Senate restaurant management from the Committee on Rules to the AOC, although the committee still retained the right to approve general policies made by the Architect and the ability to regain its jurisdiction over the restaurants if desired. On July 18, 1947, the Committee on Rules and Administration adopted a resolution to regain jurisdiction over the Senate restaurants. During the late 1800s, the Senate restaurant was often criticized for its prices, which observers claimed were higher than many outside restaurants, despite its low overhead, and also higher than in the House restaurant, even when the same caterer ran both chambers' establishments. Despite the prices, the Senate restaurant was popular, especially during lunchtime. As one newspaper noted, "It is a good place to find almost any lost one—whether Senate or Senator employe [ sic ], to say nothing of the liberal sprinkling of newspaper men who hurry in and out, combining the hasty pleasure of eating with the business of gathering information." The restaurant itself had been "long a musty and overcrowded place" and was renovated and expanded in 1909, and additional dining space became available in the Russell Senate Office Building when it opened the same year. Sometimes, the restauranteurs would make efforts to appeal to the tastes of individual Senators and officials or ensure that various regional cuisines were represented. The Senate restaurant once reworked its chicken recipe to suit the likings of Senator Benjamin Tillman, for example, and it became a great success on the restaurant menu. The Senate bean soup also traces its origins to Senators who wanted it served in the restaurant, and it has been continuously offered on the menu since 1903. According to one newspaper, the Senate restaurant pie was "among the best minted anywhere in the world," and was a favorite lunch choice of Senators. Throughout the 1910s price complaints persisted, but grievances also mounted about the quality of food and service in the Senate restaurant, and some began to call for it to be run by a private caterer or company. In 1911, members of the New England Pie Club rebelled against the high restaurant prices by purchasing food at wholesale prices from the Senate restaurant, which was then served to dues-paying members during the club's lunchtime meetings. The Senate restaurant manager tried to prevent the club's purchases, but he was met with opposition from Senator W. Murray Crane, a member of the club and chairman of the Committee on Rules. The restaurants in the House and in the Senate have at various times been privately run by outside vendors and run by the chambers themselves. For much of the twentieth century, the House and Senate restaurants were operated by the House and the Senate, respectively. As the number of House and Senate restaurant facilities, customers, and employees grew, some advocated that professionalized food service companies could better manage the restaurants, improve their finances, and provide more favorable working conditions for employees. Others believed that the House and Senate could run the restaurants with similar efficiency, would better understand the needs of these restaurants, and offer workers better working conditions as federal legislative branch employees. Today, both the House and Senate restaurant systems are operated by private contractors. Although the particular entities involved have changed over time, the general operational pattern for the House and Senate restaurants has remained similar. Typically, day-to-day activities are overseen by a restaurant manager; key administrative decisions have been made by a designated Member of Congress, congressional officer, or committee; and a House or Senate committee oversees the overall restaurant system operation for the respective chamber. The House and Senate have always maintained a formal role in restaurant oversight, viewing any private restauranteurs, contractors, or other legislative branch partners as their agents. As an attempt to alleviate financial problems attributable "largely to the poor physical layout of the restaurants, the one-meal-a-day business, and the fluctuations in volume of business due to recesses and variations in the schedules of Congress," the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration adopted a resolution in 1947 to enable a private contractor to run the Senate restaurants. A food service company ran the Senate restaurants from 1947 to 1961, but the restaurants continued operating at a net annual loss. Under the terms of the contract, the Senate would reimburse the company for any losses incurred and also pay it a sizable annual management fee. By 1960, members of the Committee on Rules and Administration reasoned that this system did not incentivize the contractor to operate the restaurants efficiently; if the Senate operated its own restaurants, it could save the management fee and perhaps operate them in a way that was more financially successful. In the summer of 1961, day-to-day management of the Senate restaurants was transferred from the Committee on Rules and Administration to the AOC and a revolving fund was created for the Senate restaurants' operation. The Committee on Rules and Administration retained its authority to approve the "general policy" adopted by the AOC and the ability to transfer jurisdiction of the restaurants to another entity. In the transition back to Senate-operated restaurants in 1961, workers became AOC employees, enabling some of them to remain employed during long Senate recesses by doing other work for the AOC while the restaurants were closed. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, efforts began among employees at both the House and Senate restaurants to unionize, led by the Capitol Employees Organizing Group (CEOG). Responses to the employees then, and during a previous effort to establish a labor organization for the Senate restaurant employees, illustrate the jurisdictional complexity that had developed surrounding restaurant oversight and management roles. The efforts to establish a labor union at the restaurants also highlighted the unique status of legislative branch employees, who, at the time, were exempt from a number of workplace laws, including the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. While the Senate was run by a private contractor in 1960, some employees began to form a labor union. At the time, it was unclear whether the food service provider was a fully independent contractor, which meant its employees could form a labor organization, or if the Senate acted more like a co-employer, which could make forming a labor organization more difficult, since statute prohibited legislative branch employees from such activity. Once the restaurants returned to Senate management in 1961, the workers were definitively legislative branch employees, and statute prohibited them from joining a labor organization. In 1986, the Committee on House Administration began exploring the feasibility of using private restaurant contractors to operate the House restaurants. The committee created an ad hoc Food Service Task Force to further study the issue, and its chair recommended privatization as a means to improve the financial situation of the House restaurants, subsequently developing guidelines for the AOC to use in the vendor selection process. The Food Service Task Force approved the vendor chosen by the AOC in November 1986, and Service America Corporation began management of the House restaurants on January 3, 1987. Table 3 provides information about the various food service providers in the House since 1986. The contract with Service America was for a three-year period, and required the company to pay a commission to the House amounting to 1% of the House restaurant system's gross profit. The switch from classification as House employees to private restaurant employees enabled the workers to unionize under existing law. On February 27, 1987, a majority of the 240 House restaurant system employees voted to join Local 25 of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union. Some restaurant workers reportedly opposed the move to private management because they believed they would receive better wages, benefits, and protections as federal employees and viewed the change as a response to workers' labor organizing activities. Under the negotiated arrangement with Service America, restaurant employees could remain in the federal pension system, and they also could not be terminated without cause or receive pay cuts for two years. Some employees, however, expressed dissatisfaction that their annual leave and sick leave decreased in the transition, and believed that the changeover prevented them from receiving a pay increase. After an initial renewal, the House's contract with Service America was terminated early in July 1991, and the Committee on House Administration charged a group of committee staffers with operating the House restaurants. Some reports indicate that prior to the contract's termination, some House Members and staff were unhappy with the quality of food and service provided in the restaurants. Service America claimed that it lost substantial amounts of money running the House restaurants. During the first year of House management, the restaurants ran a surplus for six months of operation. Under House management, restaurant employees did not have union representation because of their new status as legislative branch employees. Some employees claimed they missed out on scheduled raises promised by the old vendor contract, and saw benefits cut back or eliminated. As the House underwent a reorganization of administration and services, some Members hoped the House restaurant system would return to private management as a cost-saving measure, along with other non-legislative services. In January 1993, the Committee on House Administration transferred operation of the cafeteria in the Ford House Office Building to a local restauranteur who agreed to pay the House 4% of gross receipts regardless of whether or not the cafeteria turned a profit. In March 1994, the Committee on House Administration adopted a committee resolution requiring that the restaurants be turned over to private management within 90 days and authorized the solicitation of bids from vendors, which could include national fast food chains. The committee stipulated that only 10% of any eatery's revenues could go toward a contractor's administrative costs or profits; any overage would be returned to the restaurants' revolving fund or could be used to lower food prices. Some news reports revealed concerns about employee job protections in the transition back to private management. Following a competitive bidding process, Marriott Management Services Corporation, from Bethesda, Maryland, and Thompson Hospitality L.P., from Reston, Virginia, were awarded a contract to jointly operate the House restaurant system, beginning in July 1994. House restaurant employees were able to again join a labor union. In the early 2000s, subcontractors were used to provide catering services, and these employees were sometimes affected differently by measures impacting restaurant workers. By the end of 2008, one vendor, Restaurant Associates, was responsible for all the House eateries. Restaurant Associates was chosen over two other finalists because of "its food quality, range of healthy choices, eatery concepts, pricing and environmentally friendly mission." In keeping with the "Green the Capitol" program in the 110 th Congress (2007-2008), Restaurant Associates committed to more greening measures than it typically provides for clients. As a result of the costs of these initiatives, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) agreed to reimburse Restaurant Associates for those expenses out of the restaurants' profits, a decision that drew some criticism. The Senate restaurants were operated by a private vendor from 1947-1961, but day-to-day management was returned to the AOC in 1961, and the restaurants continued to be operated by the Senate until 2008. Throughout the later decades of the twentieth century, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee was concerned with the state of the restaurant finances. During some years, the Senate restaurants were profitable, but during many others, the Senate restaurants lost money. These financial challenges were generally attributable to rising labor and food costs and could not be completely offset with moderate price increases to customers. At a 1984 appropriations hearing, Senators discussed a proposal to make the restaurants self-supporting, and considered transferring the AOC's role related to the restaurants to the Sergeant at Arms, but no operational changes were made. In 1997, the Senate authorized a limited two-year early retirement buyout for Senate restaurant employees; approximately 40 employees took advantage of this offer, resulting in some payroll savings. In March 2008, following continued concerns about financial losses, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee directed the AOC to negotiate Senate restaurant arrangements with a private vendor. The Senate signed a contract with Restaurant Associates in September 2008, which was the same food service contractor then used by the House and the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). Some workers were reportedly concerned about how their wages, benefits, and job security could be affected by the change from congressional to private sector employment. In July 2012, Senate restaurant employees reportedly voted against joining the Mid-Atlantic Regional Joint Board of Workers United, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Some Senate restaurant employees were concerned about what would happen to their pension benefits, which had previously been provided by the federal government. On July 17, 2008, legislation was passed to ensure that, following the transition to private management, Senate restaurant employees had the option to retain their existing benefits, including salary, health insurance, accrued annual and sick leave, transit benefits, and retirement. In the changeover, however, years-of-service for federal retirement benefits were reportedly frozen in 2008 for the approximately 30 employees who continued to work for the Senate restaurants. Some employees alleged that they were not notified of this and other changes to their benefits, including ineligibility for overtime pay and employer-sponsored life insurance. The House and Senate restaurants were once virtually the only dining option for Members of Congress, congressional staff, and visitors to the Capitol. As each chamber grew, so did its food service operation, expanding from the Capitol into various office buildings on either side. Today, the House and Senate food services face competition from a number of other sources outside the Capitol complex, yet they remain popular dining options because, in many cases, they are still the most convenient choice. Providing convenient service has consistently been a primary goal of the House and Senate restaurant systems over time, as it helps facilitate legislative and representational work. The House and Senate food services evolved from small, informal establishments into large, institutionalized restaurant systems by the end of the twentieth century similar, in many ways, to those found in universities or office buildings. Some aspects of House and Senate dining operations, however, remain necessarily unique, because they continue to operate within the Capitol complex and with a degree of congressional involvement and oversight in their operations. Over time, many of the challenges facing the restaurant systems have remained similar, including concerns about restaurant finances, facilities, food services provided, and employee wages and benefits. The House and Senate restaurants were once virtually the only dining option for Members of Congress, congressional staff, and visitors to the Capitol. As each chamber grew, so did its food service operation, expanding from the Capitol into various office buildings on either side. Today, the House and Senate food services face competition from a number of other sources outside the Capitol complex, yet they remain popular dining options because, in many cases, they are still the most convenient choice. Providing convenient service has consistently been a primary goal of the House and Senate restaurant systems over time, as it helps facilitate legislative and representational work. The House and Senate food services evolved from small, informal establishments into large, institutionalized restaurant systems by the end of the twentieth century similar, in many ways, to those found in universities or office buildings. Some aspects of House and Senate dining operations, however, remain necessarily unique, because they continue to operate within the Capitol complex and with a degree of congressional involvement and oversight in their operations. Over time, many of the challenges facing the restaurant systems have remained similar, including concerns about restaurant finances, facilities, food services provided, and employee wages and benefits. 

Summary: The restaurants, cafeterias, and carry-out facilities operated by the House of Representatives and the Senate serve Members of Congress, congressional employees, constituents, and other visitors to the Capitol or congressional office buildings on a daily basis. Although their services may seem similar, food operations are separately administered and managed for the House, for the Senate, and for the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). The House and Senate restaurant systems have operated continually since they were first created in the early 1800s, reflecting the necessary role they fulfill as congressional support services. Providing efficient and convenient food service has been a priority for the House and Senate restaurant systems, as it helps facilitate legislative and representational work. This report provides historical background on the House and Senate restaurant systems, addressing major changes in facilities, management, and oversight. Information and issues for Congress related to the present operations of the House and Senate restaurants is available in CRS Report R44601, House and Senate Restaurants: Current Operations and Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed]. Although the particular entities involved have changed, the general operational pattern for the House and Senate restaurants has remained similar for both chambers over time. Typically, day-to-day activities are overseen by a restaurant manager; key administrative decisions have been made by a designated Member of Congress, congressional officer, or committee; and a House or Senate committee oversees the overall restaurant system for the respective chamber. Running the House and Senate dining systems is different from running other large institutional dining systems in some ways because the congressional restaurants must operate within the Capitol complex and in conjunction with other congressional offices, like the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) and committees in each chamber. Historical information about the House and Senate restaurants can provide useful, institution-specific context for current restaurant oversight and administration, especially since many of the challenges the House and Senate restaurants face today are similar to those they have faced in the past. Some of the ongoing concerns related to the House and Senate dining systems include restaurant finances, facilities, food services provided, and employee wages and benefits. For many years, the House and Senate operated their own restaurants, but today, both chambers use private contractors to provide dining services and retain a formal role in restaurant oversight. During the twentieth century, Members and others periodically debated whether congressional operation or private management would better meet the needs of restaurant customers, employees, and congressional administrators. These discussions often revealed how management choices could affect operating costs, services provided, oversight and accountability, and other important elements of the restaurants' operations.