2 However, this is an interpretation over which reasonable people can disagree and should you decide that, notwithstanding the above rationale, our appropriations are nevertheless subject to the five percent restriction, there are a number of rather important decisions to be made. First, as I pointed out to you at the hearings, the Government Printing Office is operating at a high point with regard to efficiency. You may recall my statement that through new technologies and increased cost effectiveness, we are doing more work with fewer people and that we have, in fact, been able to reduce our staffing by more than 1,000 people during the past few years. Consequently, there is little or no "fat" to be cut from our appropriations. Any cuts will, of necessity, have to result from cuts in the service we provide and, as pointed out above, I do not possess the unilateral authority to implement such cuts. The appropriations to GPO for Congressional Printing and Binding are for requirements of the Congress. Obligation of funds is caused by actions of the Members and Committees and not by anyone under my control. GPO only maintains the accounting records for these transactions. If the Congress wants us to restrict five percent, which is $5.4 million, in Fiscal Year 1979, we will need your guidance. I have grouped those items in the Congressional Printing and Binding We have thoroughly reviewed all of the other programs that are funded by appropriations and have identified the following items which could, in combination, comprise a $5.4 million reduction. We believe these programs to be the least essential of all on-going programs and therefore represent items that could possibly be discontinued for the balance of Fiscal Year 1979. However, each cut would still have consequences which must be considered prior to instituting any action. The programs are listed below. would cause constituents to complain when they stop receiving 2. Depository Library Distribution 1,500,000 Temporarily cut back the categories of publications supplied to The Committee could direct Executive Agencies to reimburse GPO for these publications in the same manner as is being done for the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations. This would also cause many complaints. 6. Bound Record 4,080,000 The Committee could direct GPO to reschedule the printing and distribution of the Bound Record until future years when funds are available. 9. If funds for Franked Envelopes and Document Franks were reduced, Members would have to use their official Office Expenses Allowances or eliminate these mailings for the balance of Fiscal Year 1979. International Exchange 700,000 Action in this area could lead to criticism from participating The potential combination of actions that could be taken are numerous. I Sincerely, John OHN J BOYLE OTHER AGENCIES EARMARK FUNDS Mr. BENJAMIN. I realize your problem. You have explained it very well, but the thing is we better have you look at this now. I realize they are under different conditions, but the other agencies have been able to describe where they have withheld the money. Some of them, of course, are asking for it back, or the release of it, but at least they started out with a program to show a good-faith effort to withhold it. Mr. BOYLE. Mr. Chairman, we could pick up particular categories and say we are going to withhold five percent out of our hearing appropriation; we are going to withhold five percent out of the bills, and depository libraries, but at the end of the year, when we have that five percent withheld, we don't have the opportunity to say we are not going to print any more bills because we are out of money. In fact, the chances are if we have underestimated the bills or number of pages, we will be back for a supplemental appropriation. But as far as picking out a particular category, it is difficult, more difficult for us to say that we are going to save money in this area, when it is totally not under our control. We print what the Congress sends us to print. Mr. BENJAMIN. You originally listed the cut under Congressional Printing and Binding in the FY 1980 budget that was submitted by the President in January. Now, you don't feel you are legally required to make that cut, if I understand you correctly. Mr. DEVAUGHN. We don't know, but I would say we would not be able to come up with the full $5 million, and we would probably be back over here with a request for a supplemental appropriation and try to convince the committee of the need for it, and our inability to take care of it. Mr. BENJAMIN. I would appreciate your looking at that rather carefully and early. We are going to run into several difficulties. One is that all of us realize that the agencies, not necessarily legislative branch agencies, when asked to make a cut, will make it in the account that the Congress most favors, so that there will be great pressure for the appropriations to be subsequently increased. I would not advise you not to do that, and perhaps the worst appro 35-533 O 79 3 (Pt. 2) priation to excise at this time is the Congressional Printing and Binding account. Mr. DEVAUGHN. In our situation it is hard to find one that doesn't fall under that category. Even in the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents, the Congress added law schools as depository libraries last year, and gave them the authority to order books. They have the authority by law to obligate this appropriation. They simply send in and say we want these categories of books, and it is going to come to a couple thousand dollars apiece and several hundred of them do it, and the Superintendent of Documents has no legal authority to refuse their request. Mr. BENJAMIN. I understand perfectly. You are between a hard place and a rock, but I would rather have you put it into writing now and advise the subcommittee that you have this problem. Don't let it creep up on you and surprise us because there would be a lot of anguish at that time. Speaking of the depository law school library program that was passed, I wish somebody would provide for the record the cost projections that were associated with the bill. Then, I would like you to compare those to the costs actually incurred. Mr. LABARRE. I can do that, and it is actually less. The Congressional Budget Office did analyze the cost, and I have only asked for approximately half of what they thought I would ask for in the first year. Mr. BENJAMIN. Do you see that escalating in future years, beyond whatever projections they may have had? Mr. LABARRE. My present look at the law school library bill indicates to me it possibly will be less than they are projecting. Mr. BENJAMIN. We can expect some communication shortly? Mr. LEBARRE. Yes, sir. I can give you the figures on that. COST OF ADDITIONAL LIBRARIES Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you, for the record, as to their projected cost, and what it is actually coming out to be? Mr. LABARRE. Yes, sir, I will do that. [The information follows:] Pursuant to Section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget Office prepared a 5-year cost estimate for H.R. 8358. The cost estimates appeared on pages $3036 and S3037 of the Congressional Record dated March 6, 1978, and are enumerated below with GPO estimated costs for Fiscal Years 1979 and 1980 indicated where available: Mr. BENJAMIN. I am going to ask you to respond to the following questions for the record. LEASED FACILITIES INFORMATION REQUESTED You note on page V-3 of the justifications that in addition to your main plant you operate eight leased facilities at scattered suburban locations. Please provide information for each regarding the amount of space available, their purpose and operations, the number of employees, the cost and terms of lease and a copy of the respective leases. Have you examined the possibility of consolidating any of these? Explain. [Copies of the leases were provided for subcommittee files. They will be retained for one year.] [The information follows:] |