INDUSTRY ANALYZATION OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE DATA

We repeat from an engineer's standpoint, there has not been an indepth study by enough qualified competent people on this project for anyone to believe that we should proceed at this time.

It has not been the privilege of industry at this time to assist in this project in terms of analyzing the data that has been compiled by the fine men at the Government Printing Office, in order to determine whether there are not alternatives that industry could bring to bear on the problem that is faced.

PROXIMITY TO CAPITOL

On page 12 I should like to comment that we admit that there may be some improvements that are possible, but as Mr. Giegengack indicated, why can't we have a clear understanding of the possibilities of just moving out the Superintendent of Documents, in order to free space within the Government Printing Office? We think that there is a problem of communication between the Congress and the Printer. We are aware of this in the commercial printing industry, at the time copy is being collected and copy is being approved and copy is being edited. This is an important part of the process of turning out printing, and because we think this relates closely to the Congress itself, we would like the location of the building as it is.

EXCESSIVE VOLUME OF PRINTING

We maintain that this question of the volume of work presently being done in the building should have a careful study, in order to determine more accurately, or at least to the satisfaction of the commercial printing industry, exactly what the $64 million worth of printing literally is.

Senator, your comment the other day was pertinent when you asked the question about exactly why is there so much material in some of the hearings and to what extent are some of the folks who are asking for printing being checked or reviewed at the time that the printing is submitted to the Government Printing Office? These are good questions, and we raise them, too.

POSSIBLE EARLY OUTMODING OF PROPOSED BUILDING

We think, and I concur with our President, that the changes in printing technology which we know exist, and which are in the offing, will make a tremendous difference on the way printing is produced in the years ahead. To move off into a 34-percent larger building at this time in the history of printing just does not seem to be the right thing to do at this time.

ELECTRONIC SYSTEM

For instance, this new electronic machine that can turn out 10 pages in a minute is important. We concur with the Public Printer's statement that this will eliminate the need for at least-our figures are tighter than this-at least 376 typesetting machines. They could be replaced by this one revolutionary bit of computer typesetting machinery.

This is wonderful.

Understanding this fact, we then find it difficult to understand why when a machine that is going to take less space and do the work of 376 other machines, is moving into the market, should we then abandon a fine building in order to move over to another location?

WEB OFFSET PRINTING

Concurrent with this is the technological revolution in the web offset side of our business in the last decade we know, and so do the fine men at the Government Printing Office know that web offset printing is a tremendous improvement involving composition, makeready, and running time and speeds, so that one or two of these new presses can take the place of four, five, or six of the older models. Senator MONRONEY. Is this offset?

Mr. SOMMER. Yes, it is.

Senator MONRONEY. That feeds from a roll of paper, rather than from a single sheet that has to be either hand fed or mechanically fed into the press?

Mr. SOMMER. That is right. This has been indicated, and we know that this consumes terrific pounds of paper, but it is our understanding and we are glad of it, and we know by this fact that the Government Printing Office is on the ball because these web offset presses are down on their lower floors, which is wonderful, and which is indicative of what can be done in the present building.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING STUDY

On page 13 I will move quickly along, being an engineer and knowing it is rather unwise to make a decision until all of the facts are in, we point with concern or point that the Joint Committee on Printing is making a study of the total needs of the Government in terms of its printing, and it is possible, no doubt about it, it is possible that such study would reveal any one of two things, that there should be more plants around the country, or that there should be more plants shut down around the country, or that there should be more printing farmed out to commercial printers around the country. We think that the study of the Joint Committee on Printing is an important one, and it is a study that would require or need that we wait until before we launch on this 34-percent larger building for this plant.

CONTRACTING OF NONSPECIALIZED PRINTING

Senator MONRONEY. I think we could get a thorough study of these 300 different printing plants that have grown up inside of Government agencies under the names of duplicating machines, or offsets and things of that kind. I think that this is your real danger, where we can acquire nonspecialized types of printing much better from a bid basis than to have this machinery sitting idle and two or three people sitting idle to run it on the occasion they need it for the printing of an agency like the Federal Aviation Agency, or military installations, and things of that kind. I would be much more sympathetic with the modern congressional or Government Printing Office than I am with trying to ferret out through some 300 sources, means of controlling

these printing presses that creep into the Appropriations Committee under small mimeograph operations, and seem to steadily grow into printing plants.

Mr. SOMMER. You are right; and we think an understanding of what these 300 plants are doing is pertinent before a decision to build a 34-percent larger building at this time should be made.

UNDERTAKING OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING STUDY

Senator PROXMIRE. Now, this is where you are at direct issue with Mr. Harrison, when he testified, because I specifically asked him about this study and he said the study referred to was a study of the printing around the country, and all of the agencies, the ones that the chairman just referred to.

Now, can you show how this relates to building this new building specifically?

Mr. SOMMER. We will get the quote from the Record, but as we read the quote and our contact with somebody from the Joint Committee on Printing, and I don't know who it was, it is our understanding that their understanding of what they are supposed to do is to examine all aspects of the purchases and needs of printing for the Government, which to us includes the central office of the Government Printing Office, as well as the 300 plants and their customers.

PERTINENCE OF STUDY TO CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDING

Senator PROXMIRE. Is it your understanding that this study around the country even disregarding this last observation which I think is correct, but even if it is not correct, that this study around the country would have real pertinence as far as building this new $50 million establishment is concerned?

Mr. SOMMER. Yes, indeed.
Senator PROXMIRE. Why?

Mr. SOMMER. We are making a decision without having all of the facts.

Senator PROXMIRE. Facts relating to the building of a printing establishment here in Washington, you mean?

Mr. SOMMER. Yes, because let us assume that the findings reveal of the 300 plants presently being used across the country, 200 of them should be shut down and the work brought into the central office. For instance, maybe the central office should be 50 percent bigger after you have those facts, God forbid, but I suggest just to point out. Senator PROXMIRE. Or maybe it should be 50 percent smaller, you don't have the information.

Mr. SOMMER. And perhaps work should be done in 100 efficient plants built around the country, but with one-half of the picture not before the group it is hard for us to understand why the decision should be reached at this time.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Your testimony reminds me of a man down in my State, who is reported to have left a bequest in his will that said he wanted an impartial history of the Civil War written from the southern standpoint.

Mr. SOMMER. That is a good one.

Senator MONRONEY. You may proceed.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD EXCERPT

Mr. SOMMER. In answer to Senator Proxmire's question, I will read from the Congressional Record, page D-165, which is about 2 months ago, and it says:

The committee announced that it had authorized and directed its staff to make a study leading to the realinement of some elements of Federal printing programs. It was noted that the need for printing services by decentralized Government activities is constantly expanding, and in order to provide for these needs broad coordination of the total Government printing effort is indicated. There is more, and I am not reading the total paragraph, just so you men know that.

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING

Another idea in connection with this building of a larger centralized plant, of course very briefly, refers to the centralization of a big building to produce printing for the Government in one location. In connection with that, it is our observation that what is happening in the printing industry is that the big plants are building small branch plants. Away from the large home plant, in order to facilitate service, and in order to meet the needs of customers. Actually, another consideration is that in the event of a national emergency of some sort and a war situation, and we hope this will never occur, it does make sense to not have a large central plant upon which the Government depends to a large extent in that event. In connection with this the Business and Defense Services Administration is conducting a survey and could tell this committee of the thousands of establishments around the country of the commercial printing industry, that have equipment and the ability to produce printing for the Government.

IN-LINE PRINTING PLANT EFFICIENCY

On page 14, we should like to make it clear and be sure that we are not leaving the impression that we are opposed to a single story plant, per se. In some of the discussion, it would seem to us that there is a misunderstanding and it might be semantics that the industry is saying a single story plant isn't efficient, and that is the reason the Government should not move from their multistory plant. A single story plant is efficient, and there is no doubt about it. It improves material handling in many instances. However, because this is a fact we don't necessarily conclude that you should abandon the multistory present operation and build this single story plant for that reason only.

EXCESSIVE COST FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

Again, taken in total, the costs of this operation in our opinion would not justify this expenditure of money.

At the present time the annual volume of printing produced in the central Government Printing Office on North Capitol Street is, in the opinion of the industry, substantially above the amount required for the Congress and for the classified needs of the Government agencies. It would seem reasonable that we should be able to get a better answer to this question of what is the $64 million of material and product that is presently coming out of the central Printing Office, when on the one hand this committee appropriates about $15 million

for the minimum needs of Congress, and on the other hand the central Printing Office is turning out $64 million worth of products.

As an engineer, I submit, that somewhere in this picture there is an escalation taking place, and that although we agree that it is wise and sound to keep a minimum amount of equipment efficiently operated and active and have work assigned to it, we just can't understand how on an approximately $15 million base, the work produced at the central Printing Office is now in the magnitude of $64 million, and with a plan that is suggested, 34 percent more space, with 50 percent more area upon which or within which to further expand in the years ahead.

We think this is a reasonable question, and it should get an objective answer, based on a study.

EXCESSIVE VOLUME OF PRINTING

Again, I refer, Senator, to your comment the other day, the question of really why is some of the work being produced that the Government Printing Office is producing?

Senator MONRONEY. I was not blaming the GPO, but the Congress itself for stuffing the Record full of inconsequential and unnecessary stuff, and adding to our printing costs, whether private or public. Mr. SOMMER. We agree with you.

Senator MONRONEY. Everything that is fit to print is not fit to read.

PROPOSED SPACE INCREASE

Mr. SOMMER. That is right. Under paragraph "F," we want to be sure you understand the sincerity of our concern on this item. Here is a proposal that the Government Printing Office which now occupies approximately 1,628,000 square feet, is suggesting that they now want 2.1 million feet, and this is about a 34-percent increase in floor space. It is difficult to look at those facts, and conclude that the Government Printing Office is not going to thereby do one jot or title more work that could be done by the commercial printing industry.

PRINTING AND COLLATERAL SPACE REQUIREMENTS

Senator MONRONEY. It is important, and the committee is trying to get figures as to the division of the 2.1 million square feet, because there has been testimony, which we don't quite associate with the exact division of the plant, for more storage space for paper. I would be in favor of that if it would lower our handling costs and it would lower the frequency of necessary supply of inventory. There has been testimony that they need space for central distribution spots to ship it out, as a shipping room. Those are for the departmental orders, rather than delivering them as we do at the present time to Agriculture or to Treasury, and have them do it. I think we also need more space in the document section, because this happens to be one section that pays its own way, with a small profit. That is for the Director of the Documents Section. I think what we need to find out is how much space we will have when we get through that will be devoted to the printing itself, and how much will be devoted to collateral things which would be up to the judgment of Congress, whether this would not effectuate greater economies in the subsequent handling of printing once it was done.