INDUSTRY COOPERATION

Mr. GIEGENGACK. That is true. However, I am very, very sure, and I am sure that the industry-and I have authority to talk for them-would cooperate on this deal like they did with me during the war, and they did a handsome job. Even with my staff I got out a book and told of all of the important jobs and all of the things that we did, and of course the rationing was a terrific job because it was guarded, where we had in every plant a Navy man, and a marine, and a sailor, and an infantryman there, and we didn't neglect any of the services, and we had one of each guarding the stamps. Senator MONRONEY. There never was any scandal in the stamps at all.

Mr. GIEGENGACK. Senator Hayden would have known that, or he wouldn't have recommended me for a citation. However, I am sure that it could be done, and I am sure that the industry would cooperate and do it, and I might even throw in my 2 cents to help.

RELOCATION OF SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS

Senator MONRONEY. Well, your recommendation is to keep the old location, and to build whatever improvements are necessary in the old location, and to continue to do business there at about the same level as we are doing it today.

Mr. GIEGENGACK. Yes, and I think that you would save a lot of space by moving the Superintendent of Documents out. It is not necessary to have it there. They take up a lot of space in a good building, and you could take your rotary press station that eats up so much space, and build that right across the street. I happen to be on a bank board that had a piece of property, and we had to get out, and that is how I know it. They could put in a beautiful operation. Mr. Sommer could tell you more about that than I can. He is an engineer and I am just a printer.

Senator MONRONEY. You have to use the products of the engineers. Mr. GIEGENGACK. We had very good engineers in the Government Printing Office.

Senator MONRONEY. Are there any further questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Giegengack, for your testimony. We are glad to have you back again at the table.

STATEMENT OF DONALD B. THRUSH, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA—Resumed

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INTERESTED VISITORS

Senator MONRONEY. Mr. Sommer, we are very happy to have you. You are the technical director of the Printing Industries of America, and as such I believe you could make quite a contribution to our information in this important project.

Mr. SOMMER. I think my buddy, Don, has another comment that he would like to make.

Mr. THRUSH. I would like to comment on the fact that the chairman noticed we had some visitors here this morning, and these people who are with us live in or own and operate printing plants in many of the States of the United States. Among them is Kansas, Massachusetts,

Louisiana, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, Alabama, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Maryland, Colorado, Florida, and Arizona. They are here this morning to evidence interest in what we are talking about.

Senator MONRONEY. You have one printer from Oklahoma City that is a former mayor of Oklahoma City and a very distinguished one. So they don't always stay to their printing.

Mr. THRUSH. We have them on another side of the table this morning.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE CONTRACTORS

Senator HAYDEN. Do you have any record of the number of printing plants that have done contract work for the Government Printing Office in the United States? You have a very large number, but how many have done work for the Government?

Mr. SOMMER. We don't have that, but we will get it and submit it in the record.

Senator HAYDEN. I think it is important to know how many there are and where they are located.

Mr. THRUSH. I am sure that the Public Printer has the information but we will furnish it to the committee, Senator.

(The information requested appears on p. 426.)

PRIDE IN GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

Mr. THRUSH. There are a couple of things in the interest of time that I would like to do, and I think the first thing is to dispel any impression that any Senator on the committee has that the Printing Industries of America, Inc., are opposed to the existence of the Government Printing Office. As a matter of fact, it was a source of great personal pride to me to go through the Government Printing Office and know that we have one of the finest facilities in the world here in Washington, and I might add since Senator Hayden asked the question, that 1947 through 1949 my own firm was a supplier to the Government and we are still on the list of bidders and we printed a very unpopular job known as the income tax form and we did the emergency shipment to the customs houses throughout the United States on 1040, and some of those other blanks. This was before the format had been changed.

EFFICIENCY POSSIBLE AT PRESENT LOCATION

Our association relationship with the GPO has always been a pleasant one-so our position is not one of opposition to the Government Printing Office, per se. But, we would like to suggest that it is not necessary for the GPO to move from its present facilities to efficiently and effectively do the work that is appropriate and desirable for the Government Printing Office to perform.

In the interest of conserving your time I would like to present a highly digested summary of the position of Printing Industries of America, Inc. We maintain that:

IMPARTIAL STUDY OF PRESENT FACILITIES

An in-depth study has not been made by an impartial authority to determine that the present facilities and the present location cannot be effectively and efficiently used.

COMMERCIAL PRINTING

Contrary to national policy, there is printing being produced at the Government Printing Office that should be produced by the commercial printing industry.

The expansion of the Government Printing Office provided for in the proposal will increase Government's competition with the commercial printing industry.

PROXIMITY TO CAPITOL

The present location is ideally suited for serving the Congresswhich is the principal purpose for which the GPO was established. Any other location would not be as satisfactory from a service standpoint, especially pertaining to the Congressional Record. There has not been an identification of what inconveniences may result to Congress or the agencies if there is a change in location.

EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT

There is substantial opportunity at the present location to take steps. if they are necessary, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Government Printing Office's ability to produce congressional printing. Changes in printing technology are constantly reducing floorspace requirements to produce a given volume of printing.

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING

The Congress itself has under study the development of a plan which has the potential of modifying to a major degree, the volume of printing which might be centrally produced in Washington. The proposed study under the Joint Committee on Printing is geared toward the "broad coordination of the total Government printing" needs and could result in spreading throughout the country the printing of Government requirements which today are centralized through the North Capitol Street printing facility.

There is substantial unused production capacity in the industry. By the use of customary competitive bid procedures, annual contracts, and streamlined procurement methods, the Government can readily procure its needs over and above the congressional printing require

ments.

ALLEGED SAVINGS CHALLENGED

The statement of savings is unrealistic, since it omits important items of expense to the Government and improperly includes statements of "savings" which the Government will not realize.

MISUNDERSTANDING AND CONFUSION

And finally, there is considerable misunderstanding and confusion relating to the application of the laws and regulations connected with the proposal of the Public Printer to abandon the present GPO and build a new one. There is further misunderstanding and confusion in other aspects of the proposal which should be clarified before consideration is given to the request for funds.

We are in a position to elaborate on each of these points. There are numerous other points which can also be made in connection with this proposal. I would like to touch briefly on some points of policy:

POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING

Since the Government Printing Office was established primarily to produce congressional printing, we recognize the importance of producing that printing in the most efficient manner possible, using the most modern equipment and printing manufacturing procedures available.

NATIONAL POLICY

There are clearly stated declarations of national policy, going back well over 100 years, that the U.S. Government should not unnecessarily compete with private enterprise. The national policy further states that the Government should conduct its business so as to encourage the development of the private enterprise system. This national policy has been clearly restated and emphasized by President Johnson and Vice President Humphrey and others in the present administration. We maintain that the national policy is clearly being violated by the Government Printing Office at the present time.

BASIS OF DETERMINING SAVINGS TO U.S. GOVERNMENT

There have been many discussions in recent months relating to the basis for evaluating the cost to Government of conducting business.

activities as compared with the cost of obtaining products and services from the private sector of the economy. The National Industrial Conference Board has had recent sessions on the subject, and at least one branch of the Government is devoting serious attention to the guidelines that should be followed in making a proper cost study of a Government investment in a business enterprise, which this is. As a matter of policy, proper consideration has not been given to the cost to the U.S. Government of the funds that will have to be borrowed to finance this project and the so-called cost study does not reflect a sound business approach from the standpoint of the project's total cost to the Government.

We consider it to be a matter of important policy that members of this committee have facts that are based on sound business principles, giving proper consideration to the distinctive characteristics of a Government project.

STATEMENT OF DONALD E. SOMMER, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA, INC.

WITNESS QUALIFICATION

Mr. THRUSH. Now, I would like to introduce the technical director, Mr. Sommer, who will give some background in the technical aspects. Mr. SOMMER. Let me state that we appreciate this opportunity to speak of this project today.

My name is Donald E. Sommer, and I am a technician from the industry, presently employed by the Printing Industries of America, in Washington, D.C., as technical director. I think I can bring some ideas to bear on this project, because I have had 30 years' experience in the printing industry, but, more importantly, half of this was spent as an industrial engineer and a methods man, and a layout man, somewhat of an expert with R. R. Donnelly & Sons Co. of Chicago, which is recognized as one of the most outstanding and efficient printing operations certainly in the country. In that capacity, it was my duty and my obligation, day after day, to be aware and alive and alert to the possibilities for increasing plant efficiency and operations.

Incidentally, that plant at the time I was there, was an eight-story plant. First thing they did to expand it was to make it a nine-story plant. It presently is a nine-story plant, and it presently is being used and it is in the heart of the Chicago area.

I shall run through these items, and I will not read them because some of them are repetitive. My statements are based on my technical background and experience on problems of this kind.

AVAILABILITY OF ADJACENT SPACE FOR PRESENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT

We maintain that in the situation we face with the Government Printing Office, it is blessed with having area adjacent to the buildings that can be used first as a means of providing additional space, or improving the efficiency of the buildings, if this is necessary. In connection with this point, as you have said, Senator, we look at the figure of about $15 million as the basic figure for the congressional needs. This is the base upon which this structure was built, or the needs for which it was built, and we think that bearing this in mind as we go hrough our testimony, it is very important.