Page images

2. Misunderstandings relating to the nature of the Joint Committee on Print|. study, review, and approval of the present proposals made by the Public rinter. 3. Misunderstanding relating to application of existing regulations required for the approval of the project. 4. Inconsistencies in statements regarding the type of building to be constructed. 5. Inconsistencies relating to the cost of the proposed building. 6. Inconsistencies in statements relating to the printing industry's position on the construction of a new Government Printing Office at a different location. 7. Additional fact regarding denial by House of Representatives Appropriations Committee of request for funds.


Item 1. Misunderstandings relating to the mature of the preliminary study to determine if the present facilities and area can be effectively utilized (with possible modifications) The impression exists that an adequate current study has been made directed to the question of whether the present facilities and the present area (with modifications if necessary) can be satisfactorily utilized. In the testimony of June 15 before this committee, the Public Printer reported that the current study was made by the same people who made the study in 1956. The reports on the 1956 study show clearly that there was a separate study made by personnel from the Comptroller General's Office and a detailed review, discussion, and specific approval by the Joint Committee on Printing. Neither of these conditions exist in connection with the current study. At the June 15 testimony before this committee, the contention of the printing industry that the Charles T. Main Co. had not made a current study to determine the feasibility of using the present location and facilities was confirmed by Mr. Clarence M. Flint, vice president of that company. In this testimony he stated clearly that they had merely reviewed the study made by the Public Printer's personnel. Mr. Flint expressed the opinion as a qualified authority on the subject that his personal judgment caused him to recommend that a comprehensive current study by someone other than Government Printing Office personnel not be made. The printing industry engineers and authorities disagree with Mr. Flint's viewpoint. Mr. Flint cited two illustrations to support his qualifications for expressing this personal viewpoint. Both of these illustrations involve companies which are member firms of Printing Industries of America. The data which PIA has regarding these two firms does not coincide with the statements as presented by Mr. Flint in support of his qualifications to recommend to this committee that a comprehensive study is not needed.

Item 2.-Misunderstandings relating to the Joint Committee on Printing's action up to the present time

It is clear from the information that PIA has obtained that the impression exists among the following that the Joint Committee on Printing has actually studied, reviewed, and approved in detail the request of the Public Printer:

(a) Various Members of the Senate.

(b) Various Members of the House of Representatives.

(c) Members of the National Capital Planning Commission who have just approved the new site.

The Joint Committee on Printing did authorize the Public Printer to make contacts, to explore the possibility of obtaining various approvals for the new Government Printing Office, but it can be accurately and clearly stated that the committee has not—similar to the earlier study by which Congress appropriated funds for an annex—Studied, reviewed, or approved the present proposal of the Public Printer.

Item 3.-Misunderstandings relating to application of eristing regulations

The testimony of the Public Printer is clear that this is a special-purpose building, is to be designed specifically for the use of the Government Printing Office, even though in this respect the testimony of the General Services Administration representative appears to be at variance with the testimony of the Public Printer.

The regulations of the Joint Committee on Printing require that this project be approved by the Joint Committee on Printing and that approval is presently not before this Senate committee.

Item 4.—Inconsistencies regarding the type of building to be constructed

Throughout the testimony considerable point has been made relating to both cost and efficiency of the proposed one-level building, with lighter equipment on a Second floor.

In the most recent testimony, the General Services Administration has stated that it may be necessary to go to a four-story structure. This possibility appears to be related to the fact that the National Capital Planning Commission has not made its decision as to exactly how much land will be made available for the construction of the building.

The Public Printer in One statement has requested provision for a 25-percent expansion and in another statement for a 50-percent expansion. Since one of the reservations on the approval of the present site by the National Capital Planning Commission has to do with the amount of land to be made available, it would appear from the testimony of the Public Printer and the General Services Administration representative that there is still uncertainty as to whether or not a one-, two-, or four-level building is to be constructed.

Item 5.-Inconsistencies relating to the cost of the proposed building The Public Printer’s most recent testimony and statement of savings are clearly based on a two-story construction. He has stated that this will be far less costly than multistory construction. In view of the uncertainty as to the number of stories, it would appear that the cost estimates may be subject to modification. - - - - There have been several hurried adjustments for the request for funds in the Current proposal, particularly in relation to the change in site and with the recent Government experience on the Dulles Airport, the Rayburn, and other buildings, it would appear that there is still uncertainty about the true cost of construction and the true cost of Operation of the building.

Item 6–Inconsistencies in statements relating to the printing industry's position on the construction of a new Government Printing Office at a different location

In the recent testimony presented by the Public Printer to the Legislative Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, statement was made “I have explained to the industry from coast to coast and I might say to the committee that in every city that I have had an opportunity to speak before the commercial printing industry the building program has received 100 percent support.” The Public Printer further stated, “Industry representatives have been unanimously in support of this program.” The published testimony lists a number of organizations and cities which the Public Printer visited and groups that he addressed. It makes reference to only 1 of the 50 metropolitan area associations affiliated with Printing Industries of America, and a check with that association revealed clearly that the association had not considered or acted upon this matter in connection with the Public Printer's appearance. Since most of the organizations listed by the Public Printer represent organizations that are other than commercial printing management organizations, a check was made of one of the Organizations and that organization provided PIA with a resolution of its board of directors stating that it had not at any time considered, and had not endorsed, the proposal of the E”ublic Printer. Some of the organizations are not in any way related to the printing industry, such as the Washington Chapter of the National Association of Accountants. In support of the printing industry's position that was presented to members of this committee last year and our appearance before the House committee which denied approval of the funds again this year, there is attached a formal resolution passed by the board of directors of Printing Industries of America on this subject. Item 7.—A dolitional fact regarding denial by House of Representatives Appropriations Committee of request for funds When the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives reported the denial of the Public Printer's request for funds, one of the reasons for not granting the funds was clearly stated by that committee: “Delay will also afford Opportunity for further exploration of the objections raised against the Whole proposition by the printing industry.” This indicated need for additional time to obtain facts in connection with the printing industry's opposition to this project. Here it may be useful to point out that the key point of the printing industry's position is not an opposition to the existence of the Government Printing Office but to the fact that the Congressional committees should not approve the requested funds without having before them a current feasibility study to determine whether or not the present facilities and the present location could be effectively and efficiently used. There are other misunderstandings and inconsistencies, but these have been selected to highlight what is meant by the statement in this regard.


To the President of the United States: Whereas we understand clearly from many of your public statements that you sincerely wish to reduce Government competition with privately owned industry; and Whereas the Public Printer is seeking appropriations to build a new printing establishment costing more than $45 million and anticipating a 34-percent increase in floor space; and Whereas our knowledge and understanding of this situation convinces us that there is a need for obtaining additional facts and alternative proposals: Therefore, be it Resolved, That Printing Industries of America, Inc., representing more than 6,000 privately owned commercial printing establishments from all of the United States, request you to establish the means of obtaining additional special studies before this project proceeds under the present proposals. Passed at a regularly assembled meeting of the board of directors of the Printing Industries of America, Inc., duly and properly assembled at Chicago, Ill., May 4, 1965.


Mr. THRUSH. We are grateful to you. You should know that this is really the epitome of small business as Senator Yarborough indicated. The average is 18 men to the plant, and we have some 900,000 people employed. I think that our concern about the expenditure of these public funds in this regard is something that is a matter of great importance to all of us in the printing industry.

Senator MonroNEY. We appreciate very much your attention and your courtesy in coming here, and your testimony has been very wel

come to the committee. SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

We stand in recess until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., Thursday, June 17, 1965, the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, June 18, 1965.)


FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1965


The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1223, New Senate Office Building, Hon. A. S. Mike Monroney, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Senators Monroney, Hayden, Proxmire, and Bartlett.




Senator MonroREY. The subcommittee on Appropriations will be in SeSS1011. Our first witness this morning is the Honorable Michael A. Feighan, a distinguished colleague from the State of Ohio. The subcommittee will be pleased to hear from you. Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared statement which I should like to read. otor MoRRoNEY. You may proceed in whatever manner you reler. p Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear in support of the requested $120,000 to activate fully the Joint Committee on Immigration and Nationality Policy. My appearance this year before your committee differs in two important respects from my appearances here last year.


In the first place, the House of Representatives has approved the present request for $120,000 for the joint committee. Last year, this issue was brought before the Committee of the Whole of the House, made necessary by the action of the House Appropriations Committee which did not recommend the requested funds. This necessitated an amendment by me on the floor of the House to authorize the funds requested. That amendment lost on a tie vote—69 to 69—after a debate on the merits of the amendment. This year, the House Appropriations Committee recommended the request for $120,000 and it was approved by the House, without debate or dissent.


I will quote briefly from the remarks of the ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations who handled the legislative appropriation bill on the floor of the House June 8 in connection with action taken to provide funds requested for the joint committee:

Last year we had a controversial matter dealing with the Joint Committee On Immigration and National Policy.

For many years since the creation of this joint committee, Congress has annually appropriated $20,000. But it was never activated. Last year the committee was activated or somewhat so, and so this year the committee has allowed $120,000, the budget request, since obviously the $20,000 token appropriation heretofore is not enough to permit any real accomplishments. There is some question about this being a duplication of the work of the two Committees on the Judiciary. But reading the actions of the Congress, especially here on the floor last year, the committee felt it was not our prerogative to decide what the will of the House is, and therefore on the assumption that since it was the action of the House that created these facilities, we have as in the case of other joint committees, funded it.


Second, the urgent need for fully activating the joint committee has become more apparent. Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality, of which I am also chairman—during 1964, produced eloquent testimony by Secretary of State Dean Rusk and former Attorney General o Kennedy on the questions of the constitutional responsibility of Congress to regulate immigration into the United States, the unchallenged responsibility of Congress to set immigration policy, and the role of the joint committee in this task.

It is significant that no testimony was presented this year to the House Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations in opposition to the funds for the joint committee. This opportunity was provided for any Member of the House, but no other Member, except Mr. Moore and me, availed himself of the opportunity.


The question of whether the need for the joint committee would be increased or lessened by enactment of reform immigration legislation during this session is a pertinent one. I expect the House to act on such reform legislation very shortly. Such action will, in my judgment, increase the need for fully activating the joint committee.


Pending immigration legislation in the House is directed at the method of admitting immigrants and leaves untouched a maze of basic problems on which there is need for Congress to undertake studies in depth as the basis for setting clear-cut policy lines. Here are the major problems which will require the attention of the joint committee in the year ahead:

« PreviousContinue »