almost anything, wide open negotiation, with some specific limitations in the bill that are set forth in Title 5, and they are minor provisions that aren't negotiable. A negotiated contract overrides existing law, existing Title 5, and the unions have broad areas that they can negotiate.

Now, there is nothing in the world that could stop a union, under this bill from negotiating a provision that all of the craft people or all of the people working in the GPO would have to belong either to the union or would have to pay dues to a union, if they didn't want to belong.

There is nothing in the bill that would prohibit a labor organization from getting a contract with management, if management was that lenient and wanted to give them a contract, that would prohibit the GPO handling any work from a struck shop on the outside, or you could go so far as to say there is nothing in the bill that would prohibit a labor union contracting for an agreement with GPO that no work would be put outside unless it went to a shop paying prevailing wages.

The point is, it is not what is in the bill that is dangerous; the bill doesn't have anything in it that says you can form a union shop or a closed shop or what have you, but it doesn't say you

can't.

Mr. RUDD. Thank you for your good explanation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Thank you, Mr. Rudd.

CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING AND BINDING

Mr. BENJAMIN. Congressional Printing and Binding.

The request for Congressional Printing and Binding is $85,400,000 plus $4,578,000 for a deficiency appropriations, a total of $89,978,000.

The $85,400,000 for the fiscal year 1981 program is an increase of $10,900,000. How much of this increase is due to inflation? Justify the balance of the increase.

Mr. BOYLE. Yes, sir.

Of the increase over fiscal 1980, most of the increase is caused by a volume increase and an increase in the cost of materials and supplies, so the entire appropriation, the entire printing and binding appropriation, is labor increases, material increases, and volume increases.

I have the percentage here of each one.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you provide us that, please?

Mr. BOYLE. Yes, sir.

The Congressional Printing and Binding total increase not counting the deficiency request is $10,900,000. The volume increase accounts for $3,442,873, and the rate increase accounts for $5,745,127. That breaks down into roughly $5.2 million labor and $600,000 materials increase. The volume increase percentagewise is 38 percent, and the rate increase is 62 percent.

Mr. BENJAMIN. That is after the productivity is calculated?

Mr. BOYLE. That is after the productivity is taken back out. Mr. BENJAMIN. Again, if you will, answer questions 58, 59 and 60 for the record.

[The questions follow:]

Question. How many copies of the Congressional Record are charged to this appropriation and who receives them? Has the volume changed much in the past few years?

Response. There are 5,889 copies of the Congressional Fcord charged to the Congressional Printing and Binding appropriation. Distribution of these copies is as follows:

The volume has not fluctuated more than 200 to 300 copies since this appropriation was established in fiscal year 1978.

Question. Note increases and decreases in various categories. Explain.

Response. In estimating the funds necessary, volume estimates are made for each category of work based on past experiences and on known changes to printing requirements. Rates are estimated on the basis of our projection of future increases

due to rising costs. Rate increases are due to an estimated labor cost increase of 8.7 percent and 9 percent increase in material cost.

The following is an explanation of the various increases and decreases between fiscal year 1980 and fiscal 1981 by categories:

A. Congressional Record has a 1,200 page decrease and a $2.90 per page rate increase. Historically, the record decreases in volume during the 1st Session and increases during the 2d Session.

B. Miscellaneous Publications has a 1,000 page increase and a $7.37 per page rate increase for a net increase of $.5 million. This category normally declines in volume during the 2d Session.

C. Committee Prints has a 4,000 page increase and a $3.40 per page rate increase for a net increase of $.7 million. The volume of Committee Prints has fluctuated between 120,000 and 129,000 pages since fiscal year 1976.

D. Miscellaneous Printing and Binding has a decrease of 5 million units and a $2.80 per copy rate increase for a net increase of $.2 million. After five consecutive increases (fiscal year 1972-77) this category appears to have stabilized. The decrease projected for fiscal year 1981 is based on the fiscal year 1978 revised estimate which shows a lower volume than originally anticipated.

E. Details to Congress reflect increases in wage rates and in volume of two staff years.

F. Franked envelopes reflect a 3,000 unit increase and a $1.45 per thousand rate increase for a net increase of $100,000. Document Franks are expected to increase by 200,000 and the rate is expected to increase $1.85 per 1,000.

G. Committee and Business Calendars indicate a 1,000 page decrease and a rate increase of $4.20 per page for a total increase of $200,000. Calendars are lower in volume during the 1st Session because in many cases they are cumulative which increases the volume in the 2d Session.

H. Bills, Resolutions and Amendments are anticipated to increase by 5,000 pages with a $3.96 per page rate increase for a net increase of $1.0 million. This category is generally heavier in volume in the 2d Session.

I. Committee Reports have a 2,000 page volume increase and $7.84 per page rate increase for a net increase of $600,000. This category fluctuates in direct proportion to number of pages of hearings.

J. Documents volume is anticipated to increase by 3,000 pages and the rate will increase by $6.36 per page for a net increase of $400,000. The overall trend for this category is that the 1st Session has more pages than the 2d Session.

K. Hearings are anticipated to increase 64,000 pages with a $3.75 per page rate increase. The net effect will be an increase of $5 million. The trend in this category has been up.

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS HEARINGS

Mr. BENJAMIN. How many pages of House Appropriations hearings did you publish in 1979, and was that more or less than in 1978? What percentage of all House hearings does House Appropriations hearings constitute (in pages)?

In 1979 there were 93,914 pages of House Appropriations hearings printed and billed through February 1980. This compares with 76,919 printed in 1978. House Appropriations hearings are approximately 27 percent of all House hearings, of which 352,236 pages were printed in 1979. However, there are some hearings still outstanding and they could change the above figures.

UNFINISHED WORK FOR PRIOR YEARS

Mr. BENJAMIN. Last year we discussed the unfinished work from prior years that was still on the books. How many of those jobs were you able to finish since then? What jobs are now on the list? What are you doing about purging this list of jobs that are no longer active?

Mr. BOYLE. I will have Mr. Mercer answer that question.

Mr. MERCER. The number of jobs outstanding that we have had charges? Is this what you have reference to, the specific jobs for, say, 20 years in arrears?

Mr. BENJAMIN. That is right.

Mr. MERCER. There were about 3 or 4 jobs outstanding that were over 20 years old. We now combine all old outstanding jobs together into a 3-year roll up category. That is, we don't go back any more than 3 years in keeping a job open for funding purposes. We obtained the concurrence of the General Accounting Office in this accounting procedure. I believe that there were about 56, and I would have to check to get the current status.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you provide that to us for the record, please.

[The information follows:]

At September 30, 1978, there were 415 prior year unfinished jobs. At September 30, 1979, this number had been reduced to 91. The list of outstanding jobs is kept current by our continual contact with representatives of the various Congressional committees.

Mr. BENJAMIN. You are asking for $4,578,000 in deficiency appropriations, $3.4 million for fiscal year 1979 and $1,178,000 for fiscal year 1980. Why are these deficiencies necessary? Relate them to the specific printing jobs that caused the deficiencies.

[The information follows:]

The deficiencies are necessary because the Congressional workload has exceeded our estimate for fiscal year 1979 and are expected to exceed the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1980. These deficiencies cannot be related to any specific printing job. The appropriation estimates are based on the average for the Congress as a whole using historical trends for specific categories of work. For example: We estimate that the number of pages of hearings for a particular fiscal year will total about 600,000 pages. No attempt is made to estimate the number of pages for each specific hearing. We have no control over how many hearings will occur or how many pages will be generated by each hearing.

DEFICIENCY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980

Mr. BENJAMIN. There is a deficiency estimate for fiscal year 1980. How did you determine that when we are only 4 and a fraction months into 1980?

Mr. BOYLE. Yes, sir, that is the same question that came up last year when we were trying to estimate a deficiency for 1979. The Committee deleted it on the argument how did we know at this point halfway through the year. Well, it is a little bit different this year. We knew the same question would come up.

We are 5 months into 1980, and we know at this time that we see ourselves running that short of money because we had cut our appropriation to the bone last year. We know we are going to be in the position of having to obligate, that we know right now, jobs that will amount to that much money.

Now we don't know what the eventual 1980 total cost would be. I think probably, if things continue in the same trend, we are going to be back in 1982 for a deficiency for 1980. We have cut it to the bone, and we see a danger that if this money is not appropriated, that we would in effect have spent all the Congressional Printing and Binding money before the year is up, just on the information we have now.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I think in your previous comment you alerted us to the fact that you might be back in 1982 for a deficiency for 1980. Would you provide us the methodology you employed in calculating your projected deficiency.

Mr. BOYLE. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

The deficiencies for fiscal year 1980 were determined as follows: for the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation the amount requested is basically the amount cut last year in anticipation of savings to result from the revision of Title 44. These savings have not materialized and based on the workload to date we estimate that this money will be needed. The same situation exists for the Printing and Binding Appropriation except we have reduced our request by the known savings attributable to microfiche production of the Bound Record and from requiring agencies to pay for their copies of the U.S. Code and supplements.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Give us the amounts appropriated and expended for 1978 and 1979.

[The information follows:]

The amounts appropriated and expended for Congressional Printing and Binding applicable to fiscal year 1978 and fiscal year 1979 are as follows:

Mr. BENJAMIN. Does Mr. Michel have any questions?
Mr. MICHEL. No.

PRINTING AND BINDING APPROPRIATION

Mr. BENJAMIN. We will go now to the Printing and Binding Appropriation.

This appropriation provides funds for the Federal Register and other Government publications authorized by law to be distributed free of charge to the recipient. The budget request is $16,850,000 plus a deficiency appropriation of $5,295,000, a total of $22,145,000. The justification for this item is found on pages III-1 to III-6 of the GPO estimates.

The request of $16,850,000 is an increase of $4,350,000. How much of this is due to inflation? Justify the balance.

Mr. BOYLE. Yes, sir, the total volume increase amounts to $43,986, and the total rate increase amounts to $1,084,014 for a total of $1,128,000. That is a volume increase of 4 percent, and a rate increase of 96 percent, of which 86 percent is labor and 10 percent materials. With the exception of the Congressional Record program, which is a decrease in volume, all the other categories have an estimated increase in volume.

Mr. BENJAMIN. How do you go with an increase of 4 percent in volume and 86 percent in labor? Isn't there a correlation? If I understand you correctly, 10 percent inflation, 4 percent volume, 86 percent labor?

Mr. BOYLE. Yes, sir. I might ask for one of my colleagues to expand further. The printing and binding part of the appropriation, with the exception of the Congressional Record program, is nearly all at the price added rate of running additional copies on the press, so it is almost the opposite of the Congressional Printing and Binding where the front-end cost of getting the job on the press was the primary problem.