Page images

We now handle only half of our paper in our adjacent warehouse, and it is all we can handle there.

To add a warehouse to a building which is as crowded as we are now and expect to bring 16 to 18 carloads of paper right into the back door of Union Station every day and unload it, drop it five floors, drag it through a tunnel under the creek and under North Capitol Street, raise it as high as 7 floors in some instances to get it to our presses would make the condition absolutely intolerable. It was on that basis, after a very, very deep, careful study by our technicians, that we proposed to the joint committee that they consider allowing us to relocate this office into a building built to handle our problems, and which would bring a tremendous savings to the taxpayer. That is the basis upon which I presented this.

This is something that will have to be done, and every year this is delayed it is going to cost the taxpayer from $4 to $7 million, roughly.


Senator Prox MIRE. Is there a study now being made by the Joint Committee on Printing of the Government printing needs? Mr. HARRISON. That is of their field operations. Senator PRoxMIRE. Would that not be helpful to get the results of that before— Mr. HARRISON. It would have nothing to do with our plant production here in Washington, Senator. Senator PRoxMIRE. Why not? Mr. HARRISON. Because this is a field study. Senator PRoxMIRE. What do you mean? Mr. HARRISON. In the Government they have something over 300 printing plants over the world, which the Joint Committee has authorized and rightly so, to handle field needs. This, as I understand it, is a study to decide what needs to be done in the field to make that more economical. The GPO printing here in Washington is not a part of that study.


Senator PROxMIRE. Before making further commitment, we have already committed $2.5 million; apparently this is not—if the Government should reverse itself one way or another, should decide on a different site or even should decide to add an annex, this would not be a total loss; we are not irrevocably committed.

Mr. HARRIson. I think to add an annex to our building would be worse from the standpoint of total loss.

Senator PROxMIRE. I would not judge that. You are in a better position to judge than I am. What I am saying is there seems to be a lot of merit in the House position, that we should get as much information on this as we can in view of the shifts that have taken place.

Last year we were sure that the Anacostia site was the best site. We made our commitment on that site.

REDUCTION OF PROPOSED BUILDING REQUEST Mr. HARRIsoN. I beg to differ. No site had been selected at that time.

Senator PROxMIRE. This was the potential site. 49–381 O—65—11

Mr. HARRISON. No, sir; last year this money was voted so we could Select a site and come back this year for money to construct the building. Senator PROxMIRE. Then why—I see, it was since then that you . the estimate from $47 to $52 million, then cut it down to $49 IIll IIIOIl. Mr. HARRISON. We cut it down—this is strictly based on the site which was approved for us. The total amount now was reduced from what the budget asked for this year, $52,140,000, to $49,163,000. Senator PROxMIRE. What is that again? Mr. HARRIsoN. Including the $2% million that you voted last year, the total cost of the project in the budget this year asks for $52,140,000, but with the change of the site from Bolling back to the Training School site, it was reduced to $49,163,000. Now, we are asking for that amount, less the $2.5 million that has already been appropriated. Senator MonroNEY. It was $25 million last year. Mr. HARRIsoN. Last year we asked for $47 million, that was before

we had a site.

Senator PROxMIRE. And it was understood at that time that there would be an additional cost for a site.

Mr. HARRISON. We did not know.

Senator MonroNEY. If I may interpose. Maybe this would correct it.

I think if you had used the Bolling site it would have been a free site, would it not, so you would not have had to include the cost of the area.

Mr. HARRISON. That is true, the Training School site is also a free site.

Senator MoWRoNEY. So you do have an elevation of some $2 million from last year to this year.

Mr. HARRISON. No, $1 million—no, from last year to this year—it is less than $2 million.

Senator MoMRONEY. It is close to $2 million.

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir; and that is because of the detailed studies which the engineering concern and General Services Administration have now been able to give each of these three sites which they studied and to the building as such.

And this is an amout that was agreed to between the engineer and the General Services Administration.

Senator PRoxMIRE. Let me say

Mr. HARRISON. $1,876,000 that we are upping the total.


Senator PRoxMIRE. In the hearings before this subcommittee of last year, on page 149, legislative branch appropriations, and this is what you said, and I quote:

In addition to that we asked an engineering firm, the Charles T. Main Co., of

Boston, to do a preliminary Survey of our operations primarily to give us an estimate of what it would cost to do a complete survey.

They came up, Of course, with this advice that we never would have an economical Operation where we are. The Only answer to an efficient Operation would be relocation. COMPLETE SURVEY

My understanding was the complete survey was to come—has that been made? Mr. HARRISON. The complete survey, as the engineering firm recommends, would have been a waste of money which could very well be better used for the proper type of study made in a new location. Senator PROxMIRE. Are you saying that we should make a commitment for a $50 million appropriation before we get the complete survey that you said would be forthcoming last year? Mr. HARRISON. Senator, the Charles T. Main Co. was brought into the picture after our technicians had spent 2 years studying this in minute detail. The Joint Committee on Printing authorized us to spend a small sum of money to ask a reputable engineering concern to come in and i. the present location to see if we could improve our operations there. Now, they did this by using information that they obtained after weeks of study in our plant and recommended to us that it would be a waste of money to continue to study the operation in our present location. They suggested to us that this money be used in properly planning, building, and outfitting a new building. Senator PROxMIRE. So what you were talking about last year was an estimate of what it would cost to do a complete survey of your present operations. Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir. Senator PROxMIRE. And their conclusion was that it was a waste of money because it was obviously inefficient and costly. Mr. HARRISON. That is right. Senator PROxMIRE. And the savings could be estimated without a complete survey. Mr. HARRIson. That is right, sir.



Mr. HARRIson. Mr. Flint, the vice president of the Main Co. is here. If you would like to have him speak to that, I am sure he would do so.

Senator PROxMIRE. I think it would be helpful to have that on the record.

Senator MonroNEY. We will be delighted to hear from you. Would you state your name and title?

Mr. FLINT. My name is Clarence M. Flint, vice president of the Charles T. Main Co.


I think to anyone who has visited the Government printing plant, it becomes immediately apparent that the only way that you could possibly achieve reduced costs in the handling of materials is by some means of automation—conveyors or automatic lifts or things of that nature, rather than utilizing 27 freight elevators that you have in that building. Furthermore, during the course of our study, we found that the problem of getting paper from the warehouse to the tunnel and up the elevators to a given level where this paper was required resulted in long delays—occasionally the paper even got lost en route, and had to be chased down to find out where it was and what had happened to it. This complex of buildings in which the present GPO is located is not adaptable to mechanization of any kind. It would take up too much space, you would have to cut too much space out of usable production space to put in the type of conveyor systems necessary to transport this material. After having studied the operation over there and familiarized ourselves with it, we reviewed the study which had been made by Mr. Harrison's men, who we think are well qualified. They know the problems of the Government Printing Office better than anybody else, and it would take even a thoroughly trained printer some time to familiarize himself with these procedures. We reviewed their study, and we felt it would be an absolute waste of Government money to get into an independent survey and study of what these gentlemen had already studied; that it was inevitable that we would come up with the same conclusions that they had reached; and therefore, we suggested to them that they might better utilize this money later on the design of a new building rather than to throw it away. COST OF COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY Senator PRoxMIRE. How much would a comprehensive survey cost? Mr. FLINT. About $200,000. Senator ProxMIRE. In view of the total amount involved that would seem to me to be fairly modest, but Mr. FLINT. Well, yes, in terms of Senator ProxMIRE. In terms of the $47 to $50 million, $49 million— whatever it is. Mr. FLINT. That is correct, but we doubt if we would come up with any different answer. Senator ProxMIRE. Now, you have had experience, then, with other printing, large printing establishments? Mr. FLINT. Yes, sir. Senator ProxMIRE. What is the most, the largest, most expensive building that you have been involved in 2


Mr. FLINT. We laid out a plant of 1 million square feet for the Kingsport Press in Kingsport, Tenn.; and we are just finishing up the first phase of construction of that plant. Senator Prox MIRE. What will that cost? Mr. FLINT. The million square feet, I do not recall. I can get it and put it in the record if you like. Senator PROxMIRE. Can you give me a general idea? Is it $10, $15, $20,825, $50 million? Mr. FLINT. Oh, it will be on the order of $16 or $18 million.


Senator PROXMIRE. How many square feet are here in this plant? Mr. FLINT. The Government Printing Office plant is 2.1 million Square feet. Senator PROxMIRE. Well, in view of the fact that this is the largest you have had before, and that is a * plant, a million square feet, an immense plant for private enterprise, it would seem to me that it might have been helpful to have a more comprehensive survey of the present operations. This is because, as you and Mr. Harrison pointed out, we just do not have anything to go on in private industry. There is just nothing comparable, according to your testimony, certainly in terms of the amount of money involved. This is three times as expensive as the biggest plant you have built.


Mr. FLINT. May I make this statement, at the time that Mr. Harrison discussed this study with us, we had just completed a study of the Webb Publishing Co., in St. Paul. It was again a printing operation in five buildings, multistory operation, with paper storage in the basement and actually some printing operations in the basement. We had just completed that study for them, and had recommended to them that they relocate because we felt they could not have an efficient operation within that plant, no matter what kind of reconstruction we might recommend. They accepted our recommendation after reviewing our study and checking it themselves and with others, and as a result of that study they built a new printing plant in St. Paul, a single-story operation with the administrative offices on the second floor. And it was with that experience fresh in our mind that we made the recommendation to Mr. Harrison that this money not be wasted but utilized for other purposes. Senator PROxMIRE. Thank you very much. I just have one other question; I apologize for delaying this. Senator MoWRoNEY. I am glad to have you bring these facts out.


Senator PRoxMIRE. How much of the work that is now contracted out, can you give us an estimate of the work that is now contracted out that if o new plant is built would be handled by the Government Printing Office?

Mr. HARRISON. Senator, I can see no change in the method that has been used since I have been Public Printer.

Senator PROxMIRE. That is true, but at the same time would a more efficient process, a larger operation, enable you to so calculate your own costs that instead of having it done by private printers you would do it yourselves? You would use the same method? As I understand it, the present method is to contract out whatever the private firm can do for a lower cost, is that not correct?

« PreviousContinue »