Because of variations in topography, subsoil, site services, parking, and refinements in building services, cost estimates varied in each of the three sites originally under consideration.

The reestimate presented to you on pages 11 and 11a of the Government Printing Office brochure is based on these factors.

NATIONAL TRAINING SCHOOL SITE

In summary, I would like to point out that the National Training School location is, in the combined opinions of the Government Printing Office, General Services Administration, and the consulting engineering firm, Charles T. Main, Inc., the most desirable location for our new building.

This site is well within travel-time criteria, and has excellent subsoil conditions. It can be well served by both highway and rail systems. It is presently Government-owned and unoccupied. Its location ideally conforms to the concentration of employee residences. The varied topography of this site offers an opportunity for considerable architectural license on the part of the contractor, and will enable him to create a functionally-designed structure, compatible with the surroundings.

According to our estimates, the full cost of the project will be recovered from savings in about 11 years. These cost-savings estimates have been reviewed by the Comptroller General, who, in a letter dated June 11, 1964, stated:

All the major operating costs of the Government Printing Office seem to have been considered in preparing the estimate of potential savings, and on the basis of our review of the principal parts of the estimate, we are generally satisfied that the estimates were prepared with care within the limits of information presently available.

OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

Representatives of both General Services Administration and Charles T. Main, Inc., are here with me now to answer any questions which you have concerning these figures.

Senator MONRONEY. Thank you very much for your statement.
The plans have been drawn, have they, for the-

Mr. HARRISON. No, sir.

Senator MONRONEY. The site selection is all that is part of the $22 million appropriation that has been expended?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir; but there have been some necessary expenditures from that sum in studying these sites.

There had to be an optimum workflow study completed by the engineering firm before the suitability of a site could be evaluated.

Senator YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, could I ask if all of the $2,500,000 has been spent?

Mr. HARRISON. $2,500,000; no, sir, it has not. It has been allocated but I might ask Mr. Schmidt from GSA to answer that.

Mr. SCHMIDT. About $55,000 has been obligated and the contract for preparation of drawings and specifications and engineering has been negotiated and is about to be awarded. The total obligations will run close to the $212 million.

Senator YOUNG. Thank you.

Senator MONRONEY. Senator Proxmire, I think, has some questions. Senator PROXMIRE. I would like to follow up on this.

You say that $212 million which was appropriated, and $55,000 has been spent ; is that correct?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Has been obligated.

Senator PROXMIRE. $55,000; then you said $212 million has been obligated?

CONTRACT FOR DESIGN

Mr. SCHMIDT. The contract for design, that is preparation of plans and specifications and engineering has been negotiated but has not as yet been awarded; and the total cost of the planning will be in the neighborhood of $212 million.

Senator PROXMIRE. You have done this in advance of approval of a site?

Mr. SCHMIDT. We had the initial approval of the Anacostia-Bolling site. That approval has now been vacated by the Planning Commission and they have approved the National Training School for Boys

site.

Senator PROXMIRE. So that on the basis of the approval by the Planning Commission of the second site you have gone ahead and obligated to the extent of $22 million?

Mr. SCHMIDT. We have negotiated the contract and it is ready for award.

Senator PROXMIRE. What does that mean in terms of obligation? Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, when awarded, it will be obligated.

Senator PROXMIRE. Supposing the House had reservations about this, supposing the Senate does, too; suppose we decide the site is unsatisfactory for any reason; are we able to stop any of that obligation?

Mr. SCHMIDT. We are obligated only to the extent that the contractor has performed work. Since the design contract has not been awarded, the only obligation is for the initial planning and site study.

SUITABILITY OF NATIONAL TRAINING SCHOOL SITE

Senator PROXMIRE. Is there not a serious problem in connection with this site? In the House hearings it is stated that the National Capital Planning Commission felt that placing an extensive industrial operation on the Training School site would cut the site in two and seriously diminish its future for possible residential and institutional use.

They will not proceed with planning until further definitive actions have been taken.

Mr. HARRISON. Senator, the Planning Commission in reconsidering the site, upon my request, has decided not to cut the site in two but to locate us in the east portion which would then leave the balance of the site to be developed as they see fit. This is not a serious problem. It is not a problem at all.

Senator PROXMIRE. Do they not feel it is a problem of developing the residential and other land values?

Mr. HARRISON. When it was to be located in the center of the site. Their architects had recommended we be put in the center and pushed back over the hill out of sight; that would have cut the site in two.

In their approval, which I have here, they have approved a site on the eastern portion. One of the Commissioners made a point at the close of the hearing that he felt the Commission ought to insist that we

do occupy the eastern portion so the balance of this site could be developed in toto instead of being split by the Government Printing Office.

Senator PROXMIRE. Why was the original idea that we cut it in two? Better access to rail or highway facilities?

Mr. HARRISON. No; the access was not as good in the center. This was the Commission's architects idea to put us in the middle and put us partially under the ground, with kind of penthouse things around on it, to dress up the site.

In the Commission's reconsideration last week, they abandoned that plan and authorized this building to be built on the eastern portion, which will then leave the balance of the site for development-for housing or educational uses or whatever they finally decide.

COST OF PROPOSED BUILDING

Senator PROXMIRE. I was frankly shocked at the enormous size-I mean the enormous cost of this new building. I can understand why a building right in the heart of the Capital here must have or should make an effort at least to have an attractive appearance. We are proud of the beauty of the Capitol and the buildings in between the Capitol and the White House. But there is no aesthetic reason for making this a beautiful building, it should be efficient and so forth, but it is removed from the Capitol area.

Now, the printing industry has made the assertion, and I have been in the printing industry in a very modest way. They made the assertion that a building to do this volume of work should not cost more than $15 million. That $50 or $49 million seemed to them to be a shockingly high cost that no private enterprise firm contemplating this volume of production would envision spending anything in the neighborhood of this.

Mr. HARRISON. I assume you are referring to the Printing Industry of America, Inc., rather than the printing industry. We do not know how they came up with those figures.

Senator PROXMIRE. You are aware of those figures?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, we are; and they are a complete enigma to us.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE VIS-A-VIS COMMERCIAL PRINTING

Senator PROXMIRE. Have you compared your volume with the volume of some of the big private printers, Donnelley and some of the other big ones? I realize that your business is different.

Mr. HARRISON. Senator, it is entirely different. Donnelley does a few huge jobs; we do 125,000 jobs a year. We handle that many in our plant, which means that on any given day we will get 500 new print orders.

Senator MONRONEY. What are your total billings?

Mr. HARRISON. Total income last year amounted to $136 million. Senator MONRONEY. That includes the $16.5 million for Congress? Mr. HARRISON. $15,600,000 for Congress. The $136 million included almost 46 percent which we bought from commercial plants, which amounted to a sizable sum-some $54 million worth that we purchased. Senator MONRONEY. Your net would be about $100 million?

Mr. HARRISON. The net we actually produced in our plant was about $64 million.

Senator MONRONEY. This is what you would relate the cost of your building to?

SPACE FOR SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

Mr. HARRISON. That is right; of course, there are many other things we have to consider, such as the Superintendent of Documents, which requires a tremendous amount of space in our operation.

În handling this many jobs, different jobs every day, it takes an enormous amount of space.

I know there were several members of the House Committee who came over to the plant and they spent several hours going over it, and they were astonished at how we could produce-I am not putting words in their mouths, but they appeared to be astonished. This is a plant all by itself. The problems we have, no other printer in the world has.

We have, as Mr. Monroney said a moment ago, 535 bosses here on Capitol Hill that we have to serve, plus some 100 departments.

Our engineering firm says that the amount of space that we are asking for, in their opinion, is conservative to handle the business that we have to handle.

BUILDING COST

Senator PROXMIRE. But $50 million for a building was fantastic, up until the House Office Building was constructed, and that is a different kind of thing.

DISPARITY BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE BUILDINGS

Mr. HARRISON. Senator Proxmire, the Patents Building, which is just an office building, is going to cost nearly that much, $48 million. Senator PROXMIRE. The Patents Building?

Mr. HARRISON. That is what I read in the paper.

Senator PROXMIRE. This is another Government building.

Mr. HARRISON. Yes.

Senator PROXMIRE. Why is there such a disparity? I realize that there are 535 Members of Congress with an interest in this, but it seems to me a shocking disparity between the cost of a public factory and a private commercial factory.

Mr. HARRISON. We do not believe there is a disparity. We do not believe that any commercial printer in the world could build this same type of building as cheaply as we are going to build it. Mr. Schmidt, who is with General Services Administration, their Commissioner of Public Buildings Service, might speak about that; but I do not think there are better builders in the world than these people.

I believe they handle more construction than anybody else in the world, and they are specialists in this field, and these are the figures that they give us for what this building will cost.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE PROCUREMENT PROGRAM

Senator PROXMIRE. Is there a way of sharply reducing the cost by contracting out more of your work? Does this not contemplate that you would produce some of the work yourself that you now contract out? Some of it?

Mr. HARRISON. I stated last year, Senator, before this very same committee, that whether or not we go into a new building will have no effect on our procurement program.

We now buy what is in excess of what we need to keep our plant operating at full production.

Let us take this as an example:

Say the congressional printing for a year runs $20 million and that is generally performed on a single shift. Now, there is not a printer in the world that does not strive to run his plant three shifts a day in order to get the most out of the equipment and his investment.

So, if we have to do $20 million a year for Congress, it is only logical then that we should do $60 million total a year in order to keep the other 2 shifts working and in order to make the costs of Government printing comparable with commercial printing costs.

We cannot operate this plant unless we can take advantage of everything we can to reduce our costs. If we have to operate this equipment we have on a one-shift basis

Senator PROXMIRE. I am not talking about that. Of course, even in my little printing plant we tried our best to operate our presses as much as we could; that is good sense and you always try to do that. I do not see why you could not consider alternatives.

1956 SURVEY OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

What you could do with a $10 or $15 or $20 million plant, what you could do by following the only comprehensive survey we have had, the 1956 survey to which you refer in your accompanying booklet. The survey of the present Government Printing Office and its operation, 1956, is that not correct, when you had a survey at which time, as I understand it, they recommended a $6.5 million annex, and a $6.5 million was appropriated by the Congress for that purpose.

Mr. HARRISON. That is the only one we have had?

Senator PROXMIRE. No; you have had other studies of one kind or another, but this was the one, as I understand it, perhaps you can deny that, comprehensive study of the needs of the Government Printing Office.

Mr. HARRISON. I certainly would deny that, Senator. The very same people who made this survey in 1956 and recommended an annex to the present Printing Office to handle paper were the same people who, for the last 3 years, have been up to their ears restudying, step by step, the operations of the Printing Office.

And, as a result of that study, we prepared the brochure which we presented to the Joint Committee on Printing on September 23, 1963. That is an in-depth study if I have ever heard of one.

Senator PROXMIRE. They tell me that a careful study in depth was made in 1956 and what you are doing now is a preliminary survey.

PRELIMINARY SURVEY

Mr. HARRISON. The same people who made the 1956 survey made the survey over the last 3 years and came up with this recommendation based on material changes and problems in that time.

We had a 40-percent increase in volume during the 4 years since I have been Public Printer. The Redevelopment Agency, which is redeveloping that whole area around the printing plant, came into the picture.