Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

CONTINGENCY FUND Mr. BENJAMIN. Your estimated contingency fund for fiscal year 1979 is $300,000. You request the same amount for fiscal year 1980. Detail what monies were paid out of this fund during calendar year 1978 and describe the purpose of each expenditure.

[The information follows:] The contingency fund is expended only with the approval of the Public Printer for workload increases not anticipated in the budget and which cannot be provided for by normal budgetary adjustments. The entire amount of $300,000 was expended for publications for depository libraries. ACQUISITIONS OF SITE AND GENERAL PLANS AND DESIGNS OF BUILDING

Mr. BENJAMIN. Turn to acquisition of site and general plans and designs of building.

You are requesting $19,396,000 for a new printing plant and in the past we have deferred consideration due to the lack of authorization.

You have indicated to us the present status of that authorization is that the Public Works Committee of the House has approved such, but you have not had Senate committee action. You say you are hopeful of getting Senate committee action.

Can you give us an anticipated date for the Senate committee action?

AUTHORIZATION FOR NEW BUILDING Mr. BOYLE. No. I wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and I have not received an answer. I have been in touch with the staff people, and I don't have a definite promise of a day, but they say they are going to try and resolve the question in the early spring.

Mr. BENJAMIN. So we don't know at this point whether we will have a favored resolution or not, no matter when they consider it. Mr. BOYLE. I wouldn't take a guess.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Perhaps a better thing is not put it in the House budget, and let the Senate carry that if they are inclined to approve it.

Mr. BOYLE. Well, our Senate appropriation hearings come up on March 6. I am going to leave it in there for the Senate, and the Senate might take the position that as long as the Senate itself hasn't acted on it, they will do-

Mr. BENJAMIN. I think they have to.

Mr. BOYLE. I can see that. I know the reasoning behind it. But what would be the chances of this committee and the Senate Ap propriation Committee—and I know you can't speak for the Senate Appropriation Committee-considering it or temporarily leaving it in for consideration up to the point of markup in case something does-

Mr. BENJAMIN. Our problem, I assume, is that we would be subject to a point of order, and it is very conceivable we can take a bill through without getting a rule if we can avoid

Mr. BOYLE. I can see that. But let's say that we do get Senate action before the bill goes to markup?

Mr. BENJAMIN. Then we can consider it. Of course, there are several stages. It can obviously be considered and inserted by the Senate Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations, and then we can have a finale of that in the conference. I would not anticipate what that authorizing committee would do for the simple reason that we had some difficulties with the Hart Building last year, and I think all capital expenditure would be subject to a great deal of scrutiny. I don't think you would want to lose it that way.

Obviously, it is the two Public Works committees that can authorize the building. But this appropriation has to be voted on by both the House and Senate.

In the meantime, I have not looked at the environmental impact statement, although I have a copy of it. I would hope you would consider our experience with the Hart Building and would go through your plans and make sure we don't have excessive luxuries for a governmental agency. I don't know that you have any.

Mr. BOYLE. It is a factory, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I just caution you. I know the debate that occurred last year on the supplemental when we took up that Hart Building. We didn't get very far with it, but I remember the dialogue.

We will insert pages V-1 through V-4 into the record. (The information follows:]

[blocks in formation]

This amount was appropriated lor a site adjacent to the present GPO complex but will not be expended it an alternate sile is approved in the 1980 budget

Object Classification in thousands of dollars)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

ACQUISITION OF SITE AND GENERAL PLANS AND DESIGNS OF BUILDING

For necessary expenses for acquisition of site, and general plans and designs of building for the Government Printing Office, $19,396,000 to remain available until expended, and to be available for transfer to the General Services Administration. (Authorization Pending.)

SUMMARY AND JUSTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATION ES

TIMATES FOR ACQUISITION OF SITE AND GENERAL PLANS AND DESIGNS OF BUILDINGS, FISCAL YEAR 1980

In 1956, the Joint Committee on Printing directed the Public Printer to investigate the possibility of expanding the Government Printing Office's warehouse facilities.

In 1961, as a result of that investigation and study, requests for funding were submitted and the Congress authorized the construction of a four-story and basement fireproof annex to the Government Printing Office (Public Law 87–373). However, the growing space requirements soon made it apparent that additional space, over and above that provided by the annex, would be needed. Consequently, Public Printer Harrison asked the General Services Administration to delay action on the annex until such time as the Government Printing Office could reexamine its overall space requirements.

After discussion with officials of Congressional committees and the General Services Administration, a decision was made to attempt relocation of the Government Printing Office to a plant designed and engineered to meet our specific needs. Several sites were reviewed and discussed with officials in and out of Government. Eventually, the decision was made to remain at the present location and to attempt to solve the Government Printing Office's space dilemma through expansion adjacent to its present location.

In July of 1973, representatives of the National Capital Planning Commission recommended relocation of the Government Printing Office within the District of Columbia on a site located in the New York Avenue industrial corridor.

The Commission has developed a master plan for renewal of the downtown area which includes the present Government Printing Office site. This area is to be converted to visitor-oriented purposes, including hotels, motels, and office buildings. Conversion of Union Station, which is located one block east of the present Government Printing Office, into a Visitors Center has already been completed.

The Government Printing Office which is an industrial type operation does not fit in with the Commission's master plan and therefore & study was made by the Commission to relocate the Office. The study forecasts a growth in the Federal Government with a continuing need for government printing. The availability of sites in the District of Columbia, economic factors, accessibility to transportation, and objectives of the Commission were all considered and resulted in the recommendation to relocate the Government Printing Office to the site in the New York Avenue industrial corridor.

This area has been designated for industrial purposes and is served by several highways, railroads, and the new Metro transit system. The site is approximately a 10-minute drive to the Capitol and offers

« PreviousContinue »