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 [The information follows:]

Materials Management Service leases two warehouses in Virginia for bulk
storage. The warehouse at Franconia, Va., has approximately 149,000 sq.
ft.; the other, on Farrington Avenue in Alexandría, Va., has 100,000 sq.
ft. of space.
These will be replaced by a consolidated warehouse which
is now being constructed. The new warehouse will have 250,000 sq. ft.
of space.
Net savings of $1,555,700 over the 10-year lease period are
projected. The lease allows termination in the seventh year, which was
done to coordinate with the anticipated relocation of the Central Office
to a new building in Washington, D.C. It is anticipated that Materials
Management Service will take possession of the new warehouse on
Southern Oak Drive in Springfield, Va., in December 1979.

⭑ These locations are obtained from GSA under their Standard Level
User Charge (SLUC) program and are not formalized with a lease.

a/ Charges for five months only leases being renegotiated for consolidation.

FIELD PRINTING OFFICES STATUS

Mr. BENJAMIN. Provide similar information on each of your field locations. On page ii of the Executive Summary of the study_performed by Coopers & Lybrand, it is suggested that "most Field Printing Offices have been impacted by loss of work and are operating at reduced workload." They also state that there is "major uncertainty" over the continued operation of these plants. What is the operational status of each? Do you plan to discontinue operations at any plant during fiscal year 1980? Explain.

[The information follows:]

Under the Federal Printing Program, greater reliance is being placed on the private sector than on in-house production in meeting printing requirements. Some of the work previously produced in the field plants is now being purchased. It is therefore necessary to reassess what function the field plants should perform. A study is being conducted under the auspices of the JCP to determine the current and future printing requirements in each geographical area. Following the study, decisions will be made on the future of the field offices.

There is no plan to consolidate any offices in fiscal year 1980.

These locations are obtained from GSA under their Standard Level
User Charge (SLUC) program and are not formalized with a lease.

At Haupton, Va. we get free rent, the payment is for heat,
janitorial services, etc. - NASA is the landlord.