Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. LANGEN. First permit me to welcome you, Mr. Harrison. Perhaps, as a new member of this committee, some of the questions I have are not as pertinent as they should be.

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS

May I inquire about the miscellaneous publications? What are included in the miscellaneous publications item under congressional printing and binding?

Mr. HARRISON. Miscellaneous publications include printed matter such as the Congressional Directory, Senate and House Journals, memorial addresses, nominations, United States Code and supplements, and publications not carrying a document or report number, such as laws, treaties, and similar publications.

Mr. LANGEN. My reason for inquiring is to know if they included publications such as the baby books and such.

Mr. HARRISON. No, sir. This strictly, Congressman, is a justification for the money that Congress spends for their own printing. Each of the departments have to justify their own printing requirements separately. This is what we anticipate Congress will need in the way of money in 1964 to pay for their printing. In effect we are justifying your appropriation, or we are attempting to.

Mr. STEED. If the gentleman will yield?

Mr. LANGEN. I am glad to.

Mr. STEED. The work they do for the Congress itself is only a small part of the total volume of printing work they carry on.

Mr. LANGEN. I gather all the printing involved here is basically the

same for fiscal 1964 as compared to fiscal 1963?

Mr. HARRISON. That is right.

Mr. LANGEN. Without anything new being added?

Mr. HARRISON. That is right.

Mr. LANGEN. So the additional money here relates primarily to the additional cost of doing the same amount of work and volume; is that correct?

Mr. HARRISON. That is correct.

Mr. LANGEN. And involved in that are the salary increases and such items?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.

POSSIBILITY OF REDUCING COSTS

Mr. LANGEN. In view of that, and if I may ask this question, in your good judgment, are there any opportunities for saving in this category by either doing the job differently or some other arrangement?

Mr. HARRISON. Congressman, we are constantly seeking ways to make shortcuts and still give the kind of service Congress requires and that Congress needs. I venture to say we never sleep when it comes to keeping up with industry in every conceivable modernization in order to keep our costs down. Significant of that, we went. from 1954 to 1961 without increasing prices at all and we had large increases in wages every year. In 1954 we had a 3.4-percent increase in wages; in 1955 we had a 2.4-percent increase; in 1956 we had a 3.3-percent increase; in 1957 we had a 2.1-percent increase; and in 1958 we had a 9.8-percent increase in wages, and we absorbed that because of modernization of equipment and shortcuts we had developed. Our people in our incentive awards program are constantly bringing ideas that enable us to make shortcuts and do a job cheaper.

Mr. LANGEN. Mr. Harrison, this was not a criticism, but we see so many instances these days when criticism is leveled at Congress in one form or another; I thought the record should show that every consideration is given to doing this work in the most economical fashion. Mr. HARRISON. We certainly put forth a tremendous effort to do that.

Mr. JOELSON. Will the gentleman yield for one question?
Mr. LANGEN. I will be glad to yield.

COST OF PRINTING CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

Mr. JOELSON. If Congress should decide, for instance, to eliminate the Appendix of the Congressional Record-which is not your concern; it is the concern of someone else but just out of curiosity can you estimate what saving would result?

Mr. HARRISON. That would depend on the number of pages involved. I can tell you the price per page of the Congressional Record is $90 this year, $90 per page. This includes the daily, bimonthly, and permanent bound. The bound copies do not include the Appendix as such, but a lot of the material in the Appendix is moved into the Record proper. So, depending on the number of pages printed, times $90, would give the amount that could be saved.

1962 DEFICIENCY IN PRINTING FUNDS

Mr. STEED. We will turn now to page 126 of the bill, and in connection with the request for the $18.2 million I note you say $4.2 million is to cover the 1962 deficiency.

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.

ESTIMATE FOR 1964 LEGISLATIVE PRINTING

Mr. STEED. That would leave you $14 million for your basic estimates for 1964?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEED. Are these figures, in the light of today, still sufficient, do you think?

Mr. HARRISON. I believe so. Mr. Cristofane and I were discussing this shortly before we came over and it was his opinion that the legislative printing for 1964 should be covered by the $14 million. The $4.2 million, of course, would revert to cover the deficits in previous

years.

The cost of legislative printing in 1962 was $14,200,000. In 1963 we estimated $13.5 million, and it looks like it is going to be sufficient. It would appear to me that $14 million would cover 1964.

Mr. STEED. Is this $14 million for 1964 an increase over 1963? Mr. HARRISON. For 1963 we actually do not know what we will spend. For 1962 we will spend $14,200,000.

98620-63--2

1961 DEFICIENCY

Mr. STEED. Last year's bill had $1.7 million in it for the 1961 deficiency. Did that turn out to be sufficient to cover it or was it more than the deficiency?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I believe it is sufficient. Our present estimate is we believe we can stay within the $1.7 million with the outstanding jobs.

FRANKED ENVELOPES AND DOCUMENT FRANKS

Mr. STEED. Mr. Harrison, on this table, item 5, where you show the cost of franked envelopes and document franks, I believe it indicates total estimated requirements for 1964 of $535,000. Is that all for work to be performed in that year or is part of that to cover a deficit?

Mr. HARRISON. $375,000 is our estimated expenditure for 1964, Mr. Steed, with a deficiency of $160,000 for fiscal 1962.

Mr. STEED. Does the $160,000 deficiency for 1962 bring that total to $320,000? Column 4 "Estimated expenditures for 1963," is $320,000. What I am trying to find out is what time period does the $160,000 deficiency cover?

Mr. HARRISON. That is the estimated deficiency for fiscal 1962. Mr. STEED. That would bring the total, then, to $389,000 as shown in column 3?

Mr. HARRISON. The estimated expenditures for 1963 is $320,000. The estimate for 1964 is $375,000. The $160,000 is in the $389,000.

Mr. STEED. That, then, would indicate a reduction in 1963 over 1962 of some $69,000 and an increase in 1964 over 1963 of about $55,000. Is that correct?

Mr. HARRISON. Unless we have a deficiency in 1963. You see, we are not through with 1963 yet. We estimate we will need $320,000 to cover the cost. We are not through with the year and do not know if there will be a deficit or not. But we estimate for 1964 we will need $375,000. There is no way to second-guess how many envelopes and franks the Members will order.

Mr. STEED. Since you have no way of knowing what the various Members of the House and Senate may see fit to order, what "rule of thumb" do you use in trying to arrive at an estimate of what is needed to cover the item?

Mr. HARRISON. Just history. We go back over the years and see how many they have ordered and based on the percentage of increase from year to year, if there has been such an increase, we try to apply that same "rule of thumb."

PRINTING PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS

Mr. STEED. Under item 11, what is the situation in regard to the printing of the Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States? Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Kennedy's papers are up to date. Mr. Eisenhower's papers are they finished?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I believe they are finished.

Mr. HARRISON. And Mr. Truman's, only the first 2 years he was in office have been printed. The balance of his papers are yet to be printed.

Mr. STEED. When that is finished what will remain to be printed? Mr. HARRISON. In item 11?

Mr. STEED. Yes.

Mr. HARRISON. The Federal Register is under that all the time; the Government Organization Manual is a yearly publication.

Mr. STEED. Will there be any additional Presidential papers to be printed?

Mr. HARRISON. There will be one every year. The President's papers are printed for every year he is in office.

Mr. STEED. Will there be any backlog to be picked up?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, all of Mr. Truman's except the first 2 years he was in office. Two volumes, covering the first 2 years, have been printed and the Archives are now working on the other papers and as fast as they give them to us we will print them. We did not work on Mr. Truman's at all during Mr. Eisenhower's administration.

WALL CALENDARS

Mr. STEED. In regard to the cost of printing these wall calendars, can you give us some information on the number you print and the cost?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes. You want to know that now or do you want us to insert it in the record?

Mr. STEED. You can insert it in the record.

Mr. HARRISON. All right. We have the breakdown. The Senate got 7,500 large and 1,000 small at a cost of $3,470. The House bought a total of 51,469 at a cost of $27,473.

We will insert a breakdown in the record.

(The breakdown follows:)

1963 wall calendars ordered from Government Printing Office

[blocks in formation]

Large House calendars, size 124 by 18, are printed with numerals in 2 colors, mounted on board, lined with blue paper, and have a 2-color illustration showing panoramic view of Car itol.

Large Senate calendars, size 91316 by 15, are printed with single-color numerals, mounted on board, lined with blue paper, and have illustration showing Senate wing of Capitol.

Small House calendars, size 115% by 9516, consist of the calendar portion onlv, wire stitched.
Small Senate calendars, size 9 by 10, consist of the calendar portion only, stitched to board.

Mr. STEED. Do you have a ready reference to the legal authority for the publication of the calendars?

Mr. HARRISON. No, sir, we do not. We print this upon a printing requisition from the Clerk of the House for the House calendars and the Secretary of the Senate for the Senate calendars.

Mr. STEED. It is not incumbent upon you to go beyond their requisitions?

Mr. HARRISON. No, sir.

COST OF PRINTING CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

Mr. STEED. Earlier I believe you made reference to the fact it costs about $90 per page for the printing of the Congressional Record. Is that based on the run of a certain number of copies per issue?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, it is. For Congress we print daily, 40,648 copies, which is a rather large run, and we print it on the web press, which saves considerable money.

Mr. STEED. How does this per-page cost compare to previous years? Has it gone up much?

Mr. HARRISON. It has increased, yes. In 1949 it was running $80 a page. It has gone up gradually as the cost of wages and materials has increased.

Mr. STEED. Mr. Langen, do you have any questions?
Mr. LANGEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

COST OF WALL CALENDARS

I am not sure I understood what you said a moment ago. I go back to the calendars. I understood you to say you printed 7,500 for the Senate?

Mr. HARRISON. There were actually a total for the House of 51,469 at a cost of $27,473; and a total of 8,500 printed for the Senate at a cost of $3,470.

Mr. LANGEN. But the appropriation here seems to be $670,000. Mr. HARRISON. That is committee calendars, Congressman, not wall calendars.

Mr. LANGEN. Pardon me, for the improper reference.

Mr. HARRISON. It took me a long time to distinguish also. I thought of calendars as wall calendars. The calendars that you refer to are the committee calendars.

COST OF COMMITTEE CALENDARS

Mr. LANGEN. All right. Let me go back to this question :

I notice the expenditures in 1963 were $730,000 and the estimated expenditures for 1964 are $550,000 with a deficiency for 1962. Why the high cost in 1963 as compared to 1964 plus the deficiency in 1962?

Mr. HARRISON. Here, again, we are faced with the impossible task of trying to estimate exactly what the calendars will cost because we do not know what the committees will give us to print. It is about the same thing with the Congressional Record. We do not know. It changes every year and there is a variation between the first and second sessions of Congress. I think this is probably what accounts for the difference here, the fact that one of these costs is the first session and the other is the second session.

Mr. LANGEN. Is the actual expenditure, then, for 1962, $618,000 plus $120,000, or is the $120,000 contained in the $618,000?

Mr. HARRISON. It is contained in there, Congressman.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »