« PreviousContinue »
have it updated for any inflation that may have occurred since then so it would be entirely accurate.
But the thing that occurs to me is, one, the House of Representatives turned down the $140 million Hart Building in a vote which was supposed to supply the final funding for that. And the second thing is that we are looking at the Library of Congress Building, which is also a memorial. It is an elaborate edifice, about the same space that you have, with nine floors and parking at sublevels, and its cost is considerably less than the one you are looking at, about $133 million. That strikes me as being grossly out of proportion.
Mr. BOYLE. I am dependent upon the GSA people furnishing me the figures.
Mr. BENJAMIN. From what I read about the GSA, that should be the last place to get accurate figures.
Can you have that looked at again?
Mr. BENJAMIN. You know it is one thing to ask us for consideration and give us the details on it and another thing to be an advocate on the floor, and I think you are well aware of what the feeling of the Nation and the Congress is at this time, regarding any of us in government.
ang.? BOYLE. I thing I wouo take the
There is one thing I would like to say at this point.
How long is it going to take the government to amortize that Madison Library?
Mr. BENJAMIN. With the Library of Congress expenses, it won't be in the lifetime of anybody here.
Mr. BOYLE. I don't know of any building project in the government that would recover the cost by paying for itself.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I am aware of that. And I assume that is why the Public Works Committee and the very prudent Mr. Johnson agreed to it. Of course, you still have to do the same thing on the Senate side.
But my point to you is to be sure that we can justify, even though we can amortize this over a very short period. Quite frankly, we had better be able to justify all the costs involved, and, secondly, in terms of final figures, make sure that we are looking at the same figure a couple years down the line.
Mr. BOYLE. We will submit this updated table. It has built-in inflation in it. But I will double check it.
[The information follows:]
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE PROJECTED COSTS FOR ACQUISITION OF SITE AND BUILDING (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
ASSUME START OF SITE ACQUISITION:
1978 Site Purchase and relocation of present occupants........ $ 11,041
1980 $ 12,277
Architectural/Engineering Construction Documents.........
assume selection start October 1978
Construction Managment and Consultant Contracts........
....... assume start of services October 1978
Increase over FY 1978 project costs due to delay in
funding, based upon current inflation factors....
1/ Included in the FY 80 Request of $19,396,000 for Building Site
Acquisition and Preparation
AMPLIFY NEW BUILDING JUSTIFICATION Mr. BENJAMIN. If you want to amplify that for the record, inasmuch as it is printed by your agency, do that, because I don't know how many Members of the Congress are aware of the action of the House Public Works Committee. They may have printed a report on their approval, but I have not seen it.
Mr. BOYLE. The report was not printed.
Mr. BENJAMIN. We will give you the opportunity, if you want to take it, to justify this so that when these hearings are printed, those who are interested can see it. I am sure that if it is a part of the appropriation bill, it will be not only the members of the Appropriation Committee looking at it, but a lot of budget cutters looking at it also. Mr. BOYLE. I appreciate the opportunity. [The information follows:]
The subject of new facilities for the Government Printing Office has been under discussion for more than 20 years without much progress being made toward resolution of the problem of trying to operate an efficient cost effective manufacturing operation in a complex of multi-story buildings ranging in age from 76 to 39 years.
The reason for vacating the present buildings, which, by the way, are in very good condition and would make excellent non-manufacturing quarters, are more valid today than they were in 1956 when the need was first seen.
Notwithstanding project construction cost escalation to about $188 million for the new building, we have had commensurate escalations in savings which will still allow us to amortize the project in approximately ten years.
We continue to receive project support from the Joint Congressional Committee on Printing, the D. C. Government, the National Capital Planning Commission, all GPO labor unions, the Printing Industries of America, Incorporated, the Joint Industry Government Advisory Board, Washington Board of Trade, Building and Construction Trade Council, the Greater Washington Central Labor Council of the AFL-CIO, as well as other widely recognized public and private organizations.
Additionally, the General Services Administration has prepared an environmental impact statement on the proposed relocation, and it has been on file with the Council on Environmental Quality since September 17, 1976, without, to our knowledge, a negative comment, a fact that we believe connotes public approval.
With all the support we have been able to muster for this project, it is significant to note that in his letter designating the proposed new building as a Public Building, the President of the United States saw fit to endorse GPO relocation.
The present complex of four buildings housing the GPO, together with leased space at three additional locations, does not permit us to operate a manufacturing facility efficiently. A printing plant receives and outputs tons of paper materials daily which must move from stage to stage in the manufacturing operation. The movement is costly under the best of conditions, but in a building where tons of material must move vertically on 36 elevators, instead of horizontally, as would be possible in a new building, the costs are prohibitive and the delays are not conducive to good service.
The present buildings are structurally in good condition, but the ceiling heights are low and the usable floor space is reduced by the location of support columns and utility shafts which inhibit the placement of modern in-line press and bindery equipment. When we do install modern in-line production operations, we are unable to get the full benefit of reduced material handling because of the combination of low ceilings, innumerable columns and shafts, and the necessary use of elevators to move materials from floor to floor.
35-533 0.79-9 (Pt. 2)
The project will increase the efficiency of our services to the Congress and the other customer agencies, provide the community with an improved economic base, provide a major public building project at a time when the construction industry needs a boost, and give our employees a better and healthier working environment in compliance with OSHA standards.
Any businessman in the private sector would quickly embrace the proposition when he could attain all of these advantages and amortize a new building totaling nearly $188 million, minus the value of the present building, by reducing his production costs and saving in excess of $17 million a year.
We feel that the project is necessary if we are ever to attain our goals, mandated by the Appropriations Committees of the House and the Senate, of reducing the cost of printing and distributing government documents.
REVOLVING FUND Mr. BENJAMIN. Revolving Fund.
Page VI-1 of the justifications. We will insert the budget schedule in the record.
[The information follows:]