こ

obligations incurred through to the end of the fiscal year-June 1963. However, we will not know definitely until about June, but if the expenditures continue at the same rate as they are running now, we will have to request a supplemental appropriation for the current fiscal year, or, of course, include the language permitting us to pay from 1964.

Mr. STEED. Have you transferred any of the 1963 money to cover 1962?

Mr. GIBSON. No; we have not transferred any. In 1962 we ran out of funds and had to get a House resolution passed to transfer approximately $254,000 from "Miscellaneous items, 1960." That is how we were able to meet the payroll in 1962.

Mr. MEGILL. That was an unusual action and probably the only action open to us to meet the June payroll of 1962. Even though the language was proposed in the legislative bill and it was in the process of enactment, it was not a law and we could not avail ourselves of it. In looking over the accounts we found we had $254,000 in "Miscellaneous items, 1960," and recalling the right of the House Administration Committee to come to the House, which controls the contingent fund, we urged the committee to report a resolution to permit the transfer of that amount. It was done, the House agreeing to the resolution and we were thus able to meet the June payroll of 1962 for special and select committees.

Mr. STEED. This year the House Administration Committee set a new policy of authorizing funds for only 1 year at a time, and in some instances they reduced the amounts asked for. Will that have any effect of lightening the load on this item this year?

Mr. MEGILL. The discussion was that it was for 1 year but there is nothing to prevent the committees, if they needed more, from coming back in and justify added amounts for the next year.

Mr. GIBSON. So there really is not a decrease. What they did, they cut some but others got more, so there was not a reduction in the overall item.

BASIS FOR 1964 REQUEST

Mr. STEED. In the light of that, how did you arrive at the figure of $3,325,000 for 1964?

Mr. GIBSON. All my figures were taken last August before the supplemental. For the special and select committees we figured $2,500,000 of the expense is salaries. I added 7 percent to take care of the salary raise, which was $175,000. Then we had to provide for the deficit we experienced in 1962 which we realized would increase our expenditures in subsequent years. When you put those two together you arrive at the figure we have asked for this year.

Mr. STEED. Does that mean you will not be in a position of having to borrow for this year?

Mr. GIBSON. We certainly hope not. It is a very hard item to budget on because you have the calendar year and the session and the fiscal

Mr. GIBSON. Then we had an expenditure of $3,056,000 over an appropriation of $2,935,000, and I added that difference. That is where the experience factor comes in.

Mr. STEED. Your second item was to make up the transfer deficit? Mr. GIBSON. Yes.

FEASIBILITY OF APPROPRIATING ON SESSION BASIS

year we

Mr. STEED. To bring you up current on your new money. Last had some discussion about this fiscal year and calendar year conflict on this item. Has any further study been made as to whether that is practical?

Mr. MEGILL. I think it would be practical to do that.

At the present time we are using the appropriations of 3 fiscal years to satisfy the expenditures for special and select committees for one Congress. Your appropriations are on a fiscal year basis running from June 30 to June 30, and your authorizations are on a calendar year basis. We could very easily make them match by making the appropriations on a calendar year basis if this committee would be willing to make an appropriation for a year and a half in a given appropriation bill to effect the change. If it is the desire of this committee to do that, we could budget the next year along that line. Then you would have your authorizations back to back with your appropriations and expenditures. You could make an exact comparison.

Mr. STEED. If we grant the full amount asked for in this bill, do you think that will leave you in secure enough position to drop the transfer language?

Mr. GIBSON. I would not suggest it. We never know what will be authorized. We think we are covered, but we do not know. We cannot tell. We try to forecast, and it is practically an impossibility to forecast. It all depends on the resolutions passed in the first and second sessions. We will not know what will come up next year.

Mr. MEGILL. Today the House could authorize an investigation with additional funds. We do not know what will happen. They have already increased the amounts since the beginning of the Congress. Mr. HORAN. Did I hear you say they have increased the authorizations so far in this Congress?

Mr. MEGILL. It affects the total, the authorizations for the Banking and Currency Committee. They did not go through with the original group of committees.

Mr. HORAN. You mean the Banking and Currency CommitteeMr. MEGILL. And Education and Labor were provided for a month later. That is what I meant to say.

Mr. HORAN. As I read your justifications, and I am very much interested in this, these authorizations die with the Congress?

Mr. MEGILL. Authorizations die with the Congress. The resolution of one Congress cannot be continued to the other.

Mr. HORAN. You have a listing, investigating committees, January 3, 1961, February 28, 1963. That is because of your accounting! Mr. GIBSON. We are still getting bills in for the 87th Congress. Mr. HORAN. I think there is a new attitude in the Congress now and that we are going to look a little harder at this.

In the 87th Congress we went hog wild on this, apparently, on expenditures. My rough accounting shows out of a total of 25 resolutions authorizing expenditures for various committees of the Congress to investigate and make studies, 9 of the committees expended a total of over $4 million. They had authorizations of over $4 million out of a total authorization of $6,724,000.

This year, probably because of some adverse publicity given one committee in particular, so far only six authorizations are over $200,000.

We are not a legislating committee, but it is our job to look over the operations of the Congress. In the prior period in the 87th Congress, you are accounting as of February 28 this year shows that Education and Labor spent $631,942.72 out of an authorization of $633,000. There is a possibility of a residue of $1,057.28

Mr. GIBSON. There is $29 remaining now.

Mr. HORAN. Here we have the Government Operations Committee. They spent $970,306.96 out of a total authorization of $1,040,000. Those are the outstanding ones with the exception of Public Works, which has an authorization in this period of $950,000. They have expended $775,000.

Actually, they had two authorizations. In addition, they had another authorization for $150,000, of which they have expended $111,

500.

Probably because of some of the publicity, I notice they only allowed Education and Labor $200,000 this year.

Government Operations is getting $600,000, and Interstate and Foreign Commerce gets $245,000.

The Judiciary gets $200,000.

For Public Works $450,000 plus $125,000 again; $575,000 total.

Then Small Business has already been authorized $275,000 for this year. Small Business needed $300,000 in the period prior to the 88th Congress.

You certainly have no control over these items except to pay the bills.

Mr. MEGILL. These are authorizations, and when the bill comes in, the Clerk has to have the money in his pocket to meet the bills. Mr. STEED. Can you give us the total authorization for the 87th Congress?

Mr. GIBSON. $6,724,387.73.

Mr. STEED. The authorization for the 1st session of the 88th Congress?

Mr. GIBSON. $3,443,950.

Mr. STEED. Assuming they get the same amount for the second session, what new figure would there be for the 88th Congress? Mr. GIBSON. Just twice that figure.

Mr. HORAN. If you do it that way, it would be more than the 87th Congress.

Mr. MEGILL. Assuming the House will pass resolutions.

Mr. HORAN. The House will pass some of these resolutions. You have no control over these items.

Mr. STEED. What I am trying to get at is, what is your new figure? Mr. GIBSON. The total for the 88th Congress, could then be $6,887,900.

Mr. STEED. Which would make it how much more than the 87th Congress?

Mr. GIBSON. Roughly a $163,000 increase.

Mr. STEED. Even though the pay act accounts for some of this, unless the Congress gives more austerity to the second round requests than they have so far, we will not have made any savings, but will be in a higher cost situation than in the 87th Congress.

Mr. HORAN. You have no control over this?

Mr. GIBSON. No, sir.

Mr. HORAN. How are these people hired?

Mr. MEGILL. They are appointed by the chairman of the committee and they are put on the payroll of the House of Representatives. They have no civil service status.

Mr. GIBSON. They are just like a private employee.

Mr. HORAN. This is interesting to anyone who sits on appropriation hearings.

I submit that a lot of this investigation and study results in still higher appropriations by the Congress of the United States.

I have here a résumé from the Daily Digest, which has a table showing the period these authorizations are to run.

Mr. MEGILL. There is no restriction in the wording of the resolutions as to 1 or 2 years. It is only the discussion that took place on the floor of the House in debate. Here are the resolutions.

The figure we give you is really for 1 year.

Mr. HORAN. It poses a nice question.

What the net result of what their findings are would be interesting to know.

It seems to me from the standpoint of one who serves on the Appropriations Committee, I would like to see some net results and I would like to see where they have saved the Federal Government any money by conducting these investigations.

Do these people get severance pay?

Mr. GIBSON. No, sir.

Mr. HORAN. What sort of lien do they have against the Federal Government if they lose their job?

Mr. GIBSON. None whatsoever.

Mr. HORAN. They do have sort of a participating lien on the politician who appointed him?

Mr. GIBSON. Yes.

Mr. STEED. After they have had a total of 5 years' employment on the legislative payroll, they do acquire some service advantage or privilege?

Mr. GIBSON. It has been changed to 3 years.

Mr. MEGILL. They have a right under the retirement system after 5 years if they have elected to be covered. They contribute 612 percent of their salary into the total.

Mr. GIBSON. To use the Ramspeck Act, they must qualify for the job. The higher price investigators, they would have to be in the professional field. To be in a professional field, they would have to meet the qualifications.

What Mr. Horan is talking about is the lower echelon that could transfer here after 3 years, and he is right on that.

Mr. HORAN. How much do we spend on the rest of our committees, standing committees?

Mr. MEGILL. $3,157,000 for 1964.

Then $660,000 for the investigating of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. GIBSON. $3,817,000.

Mr. HORAN. For committee employees of the regular committees of the House of Representatives, we have a total of?

Mr. GIBSON. $3,817.000.

Mr. HORAN. In the 87th Congress, they spent how much for the two terms? I see a grand total expended of $5,682,462.43. That is for a 2year period.

At the same time we are having hearings on the regular committees of this Congress, $3,817,000, we have already authorized for these investigating and study committees $3,443,950.

I want the record to show I am worried about these things, Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the hand of our Committee on House Administration, who have to go over these things, and bring these resolutions to the floor. I am not condemning the work of these investigating and study committees. It would appear to me that we have gone a little bit hog wild on some of this stuff.

Mr. STEED. I agree. We probably would do the House a service since we have the actual figures here in total of what is financially involved.

I think committees would give a lot more thought to holding this thing in check. It is becoming a very large item. It is one that is receiving more and more attention from the public and is bringing more and more criticism.

Mr. HORAN. I wonder if it would be possible for our subcommittee. to agree to some language that would express our reaction to this. Mr. STEED. I see no objection to it.

Mr. HORAN. Let's give it some thought.

Mr. STEED. We should call anything that is pertinent to the attention of the House. If we do not, I do not know how some of these suggestions would come to the attention of the House. From day to day these individual actions are taken, but we are the only ones who have a total picture to present.

Mr. HORAN. That is all.

OFFICE OF THE COORDINATOR OF INFORMATION

For salaries and expenses of the Office of the Coordinator of Information our estimate for the fiscal year 1964 amounts to $121,855, compared with $119,525 appropriated for 1963 or an increase of $2,330. This estimate was submitted as requested by the Coordinator of Information. All salaries are sent by the Coordinator with the approval of the Speaker except the Coordinator's salary which is set by law. Mr. STEED. We have the Coordinator with us today.

Would you care to make any statement?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I have a very brief statement reviewing the activities of the Office.

There have been no staff changes during the year and there is practically no change in our payroll except in the miscellaneous items,