« PreviousContinue »
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 MoMRONEY: 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 workfor the Government? Mr. SoMMER. We don’t have that, but we will get it and submit it in the record. Senator HAYDEN. Ithink 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:
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.
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 Congress— which 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.
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
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. GovKRNMENT
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.
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 through our testimony, it is very important.
INDUSTRY ANALYzATION OF Gover NMENT 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 12I 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.
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.