UNALLOCATED BALANCES-LUMP SUMS

Mr. HORAN. I would like to have some accounting of the $16,287, 1961 and 1962 estimates on reserve for additional personnel under "Personal services," for the additional reserve for temporary employment in the Disbursing Office, which has risen from 1960 actual to $15,884. I would like to have a report on that. You have a new item under reserve for temporary employment in the House Recording Studio. Those all total almost $33,000. We should have an accounting of it.

Mr. MEGILL. What do you mean by temporary employment in the House Recording Studio?

Mr. HORAN. It is in the committee print. Reserved for additional personnel. Actual 1960 was $15,968, and it is estimated for 1961, the fiscal year drawing to a close, at $16,287, and the projected estimate for next fiscal year, I guess, $16,287.

Then, the item under "Disbursing Office," which has risen considerably, but I think could be justified, part of it anyhow, from $226 actual in 1960 to $15,884 in the present estimates for the present fiscal year and the projection for 1962. Also there is the new item under the recording studio, $780 for temporary employment.

Mr. HARPER. Mr. Horan, I think I understand your point. Maybe I can answer it. If not, we will clarify it for the record.

These figures you recite result from the lump sums which are available to the Clerk, in the case of the House Disbursing Office a lump sum of $100,000-plus. As of the date these figures were prepared, we projected the actual employees, with their then rates of pay. That is where you get a reserve, where the Clerk has not used all of his lump

sum.

That is true in the case of assistants in the Disbursing Office and also true in the administrative assistants and it is true in one other small lump sum, but it is not an increase in the estimate but is an increase of what the Clerk has been saving.

Mr. HORAN. Then, to understand this-we might be questioned about this—for additional personnel the Clerk actually had unexpended $15,968?

Mr. HARPER. No. You see, we start out with a lump sum of $100,500. People who are actually on the Clerk's payroll are listed with their salaries and the number of people. So that when you total those salaries, you have an uncommitted portion of the $100,500, which would be projected for the full year, you have this $15,884 left. That is left from the $100,000 lump sum.

Mr. HORAN. That is the Disbursing Office?

Mr. HARPER. Yes, sir. The same thing applies to the administrative assistants. The lump sum is there, and we list salaries which the Clerk is actually using as of the date this is prepared. So when you project that to the end of the fiscal year, you have a balance from the lump sum appropriated.

The reason it is larger right at this particular time is that a substantial portion of both these sums is used for extra people, later in the year, and when the end of the year comes, it probably will not be as high as it is. This is not an increase, this is really an increased saving from the lump sum.

If I have not made it clear, I will certainly attempt to, in writing, in the record.

Mr. STEED. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. HORAN. Then we are to assume the first column of the print is actual expenditures?

Mr. HARPER. Correct.

Mr. HORAN. We are also to assume that the second one is still under the estimate for the year of 1961 based on the lump sum? Mr. HARPER. Yes.

EXPENDITURES UNDER LUMP-SUM APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. HORAN. Could you just in completing this compile expenditures to the 1st of May?

Mr. ROBERTS. We have it to March 31.

Mr. HORAN. That will probably be all right.

Mr. HARPER. There are three of these lump sums.

First is the administrative assistants lump sum of $85,850. As of March 31 there was a balance available of $30,860.50.

In the Disbursing Office that is the lump sum we talked about here $100,500, and as of March 31, $34,840 left.

There is an additional clerical assistants lump sum of $11,470. That has been expended with the exception of $810.42.

Mr. HORAN. That is where?

Mr. HARPER. That is additional clerical assistance available in another section of the Clerk's Office. There are three of those lump

sums.

Mr. HORAN. What is the situation with the recording studio? That is only $780.

Mr. HARPER. I do not have that figure now, but that situation is the same. There was a vacancy there or for some reason the total lump sum is not used. In none of these cases have the Clerk's estimates gone up. The lump sums have remained the same, and the figure you see is really what would be left if there were no change in salary of personnel until the end of the year.

Mr. HORAN. I think that is adequate, Mr. Chairman.

EXPENDITURES VS. APPROPRIATION AVAILABLE

Mr. Bow. Does that take care of the situation? Your appropriation for 1961 actual was $1,139,350, and your estimates show you will spend $1,146,000. Your estimate is higher than your actual appropriation.

Mr. HARPER. We are asking for an additional $6,675 in the Office of the Clerk to make that adjustment in that one position in the recording studio.

Mr. Bow. That is for fiscal 1962, but how about your fiscal 1961? Your actual appropriation was less than your estimates show you are going to spend. You show on page 10 your expenditures of $1,146,017 and your actual appropriation of $1,139,000. Why are your estimates of expenditures higher than your actual appropriation?

Mr. Bow. Your estimate for 1961 expenditures is $1,146,017. Your appropriation for 1961 is $1,139,350. Your estimate is higher than your actual appropriation. That is for 1961.

Mr. HARPER. I will have to clarify that for you.

Mr. Bow. I think in making up a committee print you ought to have the answers.

Mr. HORAN. It is $6,000, plus.

Mr. Bow. It is a small amount, but you should not estimate that you are going to spend more than your actual appropriation. A vacancy ought not to cause you to spend more than your appropriation.

Mr. HARPER. I did not prepare this book, Mr. Bow. It was prepared by your committee here. I will certainly clarify it for the record.

Mr. Bow. You mean the committee prepared your estimates?
Mr. HARPER. No, sir.

Mr. Bow. These are your estimates. This $1,146,017 is your esti-
Is that not right?

mate.

Mr. HARPER. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. And the $1,139,350 is actually what the appropriation was last year?

Mr. HARPER. Right.

Mr. Bow. That has nothing to do with this committee.

Mr. HARPER. Mr. Bow

Mr. Bow. Let us get an answer. I want that cleared up. The committee had nothing to do with that; is that right?

Mr. HARPER. That is right. I am sorry.

Mr. STEED. Has there been a supplemental on this 1961 item on page 8 since this was prepared?

Mr. Bow. There is nothing in the supplementals now on it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MEGILL. I think it is that increase of $6,675. I do not know what part that plays right now, but I think that is the item that makes the difference.

Mr. Bow. There should not be any difference. Your estimates should not be higher than your actual appropriation. You are violating the deficiency law if you do it. Your estimate shows you are running a deficiency, which is a violation of law. So try to explain that in the record.

69462-61-16

(The following was submitted later.)

Total salaries reflected as of February 28, 1961–
Appropriation or estimate for 1961_-_

Unexplained difference in figures_.

Adjust for job in House recording studio1

Difference__

Adjust for underestimate of 72 percent on Office of the Clerk'

Difference.

$1, 146, 017 1, 139, 350

6,667

6, 376

291

300

9

1 In last year's hearings the Clerk asked for $1,073,150 for 2 new jobs, 1 in House recording and 1 in the property custodian's office which amounted to $13,000. These jobs were not allowed at that time and the Clerk's budget was cut to $1,060,150. At a later date the job in House recording was authorized and the lump sum increased from $105,545 to $111,480, but at the same time the overall total budget estimate was not increased and stayed at $1,060.150. In essence we were authorized to create the job but were given no increase in moneys with which to pay for the job.

2 When preparing the figures for the supplemental appropriation to provide for the 7%-percent pay increase on the overall figure of $1,060,150, we computed the additional amount to be $79,200 when it should have been $79,500.

The remaining difference can be explained by the custom of rounding off the figures to the nearest dollar before they are typed on standard form 3a, and also by rounding off the figures to arrive at the amount needed for the supplemental appropriation.

In essence, the 1961 estimate was made up based upon salaries being paid as of that date; however, actual expenditures will not be in excess of what was appropriated. The money for the salary in the studio, which was authorized, but not appropriated for, has been made up from other sources resulting from vacancies which have existed from time to time.

SURPLUS IN STATIONERY FUND

Mr. Bow. A few years ago in the stationery room, where we had a surplus, we drained off some of that surplus and used it for payment of other appropriations. I notice you now have a substantial surplus again. How much of that can we take over and use for distribution to these appropriations? Could we take $50,000?

Mr. ROBERTS. You could, but I would not recommend it.

Mr. Bow. Why not?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, if we get new quarters in the New House Office Building, which we are trying for, that would increase our storeroom space over there and we could carry a larger inventory.

Mr. Bow. When are you going to get that storeroom in the New House Office Building?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not know. We are not making any money now. Mr. Bow. You have a surplus of $150,000 now?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir, but this money really belongs to the Members. Mr. Bow. There is nothing that that $150,000 can be used for particularly. If you had $100,000 surplus in that operation, it seems to me that would be an adequate surplus.

Mr. ROBERTS. We cannot contemplate we would need it unless there would be an unusual destruction of some of our property in inventory, such as the paper room where we carry as much as $20,000 or $30,000 worth of paper. It has been flooded over there. It could happen again. There might be a fire, which I do not expect.

Mr. Bow. You would still be protected with a reserve of $100,000. I just wanted to bring out that we did this a few years ago, and it seems to me we are up to where we could take a little again and relieve the taxpayers of some burden.

Mr. ROBERTS. We have had this money for 2 years.

Mr. Bow. We have carried $150,000 surplus for 2 years?

Mr. MEGILL. Yes, and it was much higher before. The room has operated in such an efficient way that the Clerk has actually brought down the prices to where he is giving to the Members the articles for the actual volume price at which he makes the purchase.

Mr. Bow. This committee had something to do with that. The committee raised that question. I am not particularly interested in that. I am interested in this $150,000. It seems to me rather foolish to carry that much.

QUESTION OF CONTRACTING FOR CHECKWRITING

Is there any effort being made now to change the manner of writing checks and doing this downtown?

Mr. ROBERTS. There is always consideration of these things. A few years ago we purchased a lot of machines in the disbursing office to write checks and do most of the work. They are becoming old and obsolete now. We have been approached by IBM and RCA and Remington Rand about putting in different systems, but we have not gone into it very thoroughly.

Mr. Bow. You are not contemplating letting any contract with those people outside the Capitol to take over those functions? Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. Bow. That is all.
Mr. STEED. Dr. Alford.

Mr. ALFORD. In the 86th Congress we voted a pay increase for Federal employees throughout the country. Was this projected to the employees of the Clerk?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was.

Mr. ALFORD. And they have all received the pay increase?

Mr. ROBERTS. That is right.

Mr. ALFORD. Thank you.

Mr. STEED. Proceed.

PREPARATION OF THE CLERK'S REPORT

Mr. ROBERTS. For the preparation of the Clerk's report, $8,000, the same as appropriated for the current fiscal year 1961.

Mr. STEED. I think this is a new item in the regular bill. This was put in through a supplemental, as I understand it. Is that correct? Mr. ROBERTS. You will remember last year this committee wrote language into the legislative appropriation bill directing the Clerk to make a report.

Mr. STEED. Could you give some comment as to what your report will include?

Mr. ROBERTS. Everything the law required. I filed that with the House the first day of the session. The Speaker referred it to the Committee on House Administration but did not order it printed. It is with the committee; I do not know whether the committee has ordered it printed or not.

Mr. STEED. Did the resolution authorizing the report designate that it be printed? If so, how many copies and how was it to be distributed?