Mr. BENJAMIN. A second question deals with the fact that you are trying to produce a single source of budget language, and of course in 1977 and 1978 we had similar testimony. Are we finally at the single source as you would visualize it? Mr. HENSHAW. Very close to it, yes, sir. We have made every effort. John, do you see where we can maybe make other improvements? Mr. LAWLER. The only difference between the testimony, Mr. Chairman, that is referred to here in the black notebooks as we are reading through, and the document referred to as the Subcommittee Print is that the Subcommittee Print contains more historical information and legislative reference. The day-to-day testimony that is presented here represents programs that are being discussed for just the current year. Short of that, spending histories, level of expenditures, this type of information, that you find necessary is contained in the Subcommittee Print. That is why we are saying that it is your primary reference point. Mr. BENJAMIN. Can we anticipate any follow-up changes, or is this it? Mr. LAWLER. The only other change that could be integrated into the Subcommittee Print would be the latest spending changes that we do prepare for the day-to-day testimony, but of course at the time the Subcombizi months old informat Mr. BENJAMIN. You e SURPLUS ITEMIZED do through its staff Bould you please give us the total then you have gotten: Mr. LAWLER. Yes, st Mr. BENJAMIN. Mr. Michel, a Mr. MICHEL. You go ahead hairman. We have an overview of accounts, which arrives at the ap1 surplus the Clerk just mentioned. rs to be $22,948,000. 2 voluntary fiscal restraints by the acesse 2 PROJECTED 1979 BALANCES BERGE SE Mr. BENJAMIN. We would like projected; we would like you to use the firm of the statement table on page 2 of the submitte to put that in the record The information follows ght emphasize at this time that assurances can be given that the the course of the fiscal year, but ending level and reviewed by our understand you, then. What you ence shows that these various ll of their money, but you have that 5 percent of their funds hat what you are telling us? 3 point, Mr. Chairman. f the House leadership offices control, and we would be in ion; is that correct? counts were reviewed to deter viewed them and based your ice. Did you notify the leaderO withheld from it? fice has not, inasmuch as it centage than the 5 percent, last year's bill just through hheld. us that the 5 percent compliauch from their appropriation. met, then we would be forced t was the intent of 311. I don't nd of the fiscal year and say all oney, and we should only use 95 ou are going to go back to this ditional appropriation so you can September. on't anticipate coming in in August he offices. We did think a proper a more real spending pattern, would quarters. We anticipated at the close r to review the accounts, and if the that they were going to have surplus cuts required by the amendment last eduction would be made. et me get back to my question. If I took Taxation, where you have a projected ey don't know at this point from the 1979 Mr. BENJAMIN. A second question deals with the fact that you are trying to produce a single source of budget language, and of course in 1977 and 1978 we had similar testimony. Are we finally at the single source as you would visualize it? Mr. HENSHAW. Very close to it, yes, sir. We have made every effort. John, do you see where we can maybe make other improvements? Mr. LAWLER. The only difference between the testimony, Mr. Chairman, that is referred to here in the black notebooks as we are reading through, and the document referred to as the Subcommittee Print is that the Subcommittee Print contains more historical information and legislative reference. The day-to-day testimony that is presented here represents programs that are being discussed for just the current year. Short of that, spending histories, level of expenditures, this type of information, that you find necessary is contained in the Subcommittee Print. That is why we are saying that it is your primary reference point. th Mr. BENJAMIN. Can we anticipate any follow-up changes, or is VLER. The only other change that could be integrated into mittee Print would be the latest spending changes that are for the day-to-day testimony, but of course at the time the Subcommittee Print is proposed, that is a couple of months old information. Mr. BENJAMIN. You are talking to what the subcommittee may do through its staff. But in respect to your office, I would assume then you have gotten down to a unified system, and this is it. Mr. LAWLER. Yes, sir. Mr. BENJAMIN. Mr. Michel, any questions? 5 PERCENT CUT ON 1979 APPROPRIATIONS Mr. BENJAMIN. Last year, a 5 percent cut was applied to the legislative branch appropriation bill. Tell us where the cut was applied, and which accounts were affected, and by what amounts. Mr. HENSHAW. Once again, Mr. Chairman, if it is all right, I am going to let Mr. Lawler go ahead and explain. However, in my statement, Mr. Chairman, I had referred to section 311 of the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act of 1979, mandating that of the total budget authority provided in the act, for payments not required by law, 5 percent shall be withheld from obligation and expenditure. We are pleased to report to the subcommittee that due to the voluntary fiscal restraints by the offices, we estimate that the House, including its share of Joint Items, will have slightly over 6 percent of the funds which were provided in the 1979 act unexpended. This estimate is based on the spending levels during the first quarter of fiscal 1979 and further adjusting for the expenditures through January 1979. I think it would be best if I had Mr. Lawler go over these in detail as to where the schedule of estimated projected balances would be. PROJECTED 1979 BALANCES BEFORE SUPPLEMENTAL Mr. BENJAMIN. We would like a list of the savings that are projected; we would like you to use the format of the comparative statement table on page 2 of the subcommittee print, and ask you to put that in the record. [The information follows:] |