Mr. McCORMICK. I would first agree, of course, that the percentage of commercially procured work has been increasing. We have attained a level wherein about 70 percent of the total printing was purchased from outside sources through this fiscal year.

I think that is about the maximum. That is a percentage of a steadily increasing total. The amount of work that we do in-house has pretty much been static. This is primarily congressional work which we feel must be done within a Government facility to meet the schedules required by the Congress. The thrust of the building project is to do that work more efficiently and effectively.

We feel that it will have to be done in-house and if we do it in a new facility we can save something in the neighborhood of $11 to $12 million a year.

Senator HOLLINGS. Are you pulling back from that request for site acquisition?

Mr. MCCORMICK. No, sir. We have not taken all of the necessary steps.

Senator HOLLINGS. When are you going to make those necessary steps? I am anxious to save that $11 to $12 million. I know you are. What is holding us up?

Mr. McCORMICK. Procedural matters, I would have to say, is the primary reason.

Senator HOLLINGS. What does that mean to me?

Mr. McCORMICK. Clearing through the House and Senate Public Works Committees.

Senator HOLLINGS. Have they had any holdup at the hearings?

Mr. McCORMICK. Not to my knowledge. The preparation of the prospectus by the GSA would be the major delaying factor.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

Senator HOLLINGS. What is the status of the Environmental Impact Statement? You remember we put up $300,000 for that.

Mr. MCCORMICK. Yes, sir. You did. The awards have been made. That is proceeding.

Senator HOLLINGS. But you do not yet have in hand the Environmental Impact Statement?

Mr. MCCORMICK. No, sir. We do have the prospectus. There was a complication as to how the prospectus for a legislative agency is requested by the GSA. That was the big holdup. It is now prepared and in the hands of the Joint Committee on Printing. We understand they have forwarded it to the House and Senate Public Works Committees.

CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING AND BINDING INCREASES

Senator HOLLINGS. I want to insert in the record page 17 of the justification book entitled Billings and Estimated Outstanding Obligations by Category as of September 30, 1974.

[The document follows:]

Senator HOLLINGS. We have compared the estimated expenditures for 1976 which total $85.1 million with $54.3 million estimate of 1973, just 3 years ago.

You can see some startling increases. How much of this increase is due to volume and how much is due to inflation?

Mr. MCCORMICK. I would say the majority is due to volume. I don't have it for the 3 years. I do, for example, have for fiscal year 1976 compared with 1975 and of that increase of approximately $28 million, the increase in physical volume accounted for 61 percent. The balance was increased labor costs and materials costs.

FEDERAL REGISTER PROGRAM

Senator HOLLINGS. The increase for the Congressional Record is roughly 50 percent; details to Congress are up by 62 percent; the Committee Reports, 63 percent; and Hearings, 67 percent. But the largest increases are under item 11: the Federal Register, U.S. Government Manual, Public Papers and Weekly Compilations. They are up some 172 percent.

Is the Congress picking up the White House and National Archives printing bills? This was mentioned last year.

Mr. MCCORMICK. That is correct. These are publications that are prepared by the Archives through the Office of the Federal Register. They are the editors of them. We do the printing and the printing costs are charged to Congressional Printing and Binding. The Federal Register contains the rules and regulations that are promulgated by all of the agencies.

Senator HOLLINGS. The executive agencies?

Mr. MCCORMICK. Yes, sir, executive agencies. The Archivist does not have control of the material. All he does is perform editorial functions.

Senator HOLLINGS. But you sit on a committee that determines the costs. Has any thought been given to getting the executive branch to pick up those costs?

Mr. MCCORMICK. We have discussed that concept informally. The Government Printing Office would have no concern about it. The cost to the Government, of course, would be the same. It would be a transfer from the legislative congressional appropriation to the General Services Administration, I assume.

There is one consideration, of course, because of the fluctuations in volume and our inability to determine the volume of printing work that is going to be generated from 1 year to the other, our appropriation language allows us to obligate funds and in effect go into a deficiency position and come back next year and request funds to make that up.

I would assume that similar language would have to be inserted in the General Services Administration appropriation if they were to take the responsibility for these printing and binding costs. Senator HOLLINGS. Senator Schweiker?

COSTS FOR NEW BUILDING

Senator SCHWEIKER. On the construction, may I ask a question?
Senator HOLLINGS. Sure.

Senator SCHWEIKER. As I read your report here, the costs now are $158 million for the new building. Is that right?

Mr. MCCORMICK. That would exclude the moving costs.

Senator SCHWEIKER. A moment ago when you said there was some second thoughts, how does that affect the $158 million project, or did I misunderstand what you said?

Mr. MCCORMICK. I think you misunderstood me, Senator. I didn't intend to indicate second thoughts.

Senator SCHWEIKER. This would completely abandon the present location you have now and move everything?

Mr. MCCORMICK. Yes, sir, that is correct.

COMMERCIALLY PROCURED PRINTING INCREASING

Senator SCHWEIKER. You were telling us something about office space versus printing, production space. Maybe I missed the point you are making.

Mr. MCCORMICK. The Chairman made the point that we are increasing our percentage of commercially procured business. We have gone since 1956 from about 50-50 to a ratio of about 70-30, currently. Seventy percent is external. But the work that we are doing in-house is essentially the same. It is primarily congressional work.

Senator SCHWEIKER. The new $158 million plant would basically continue at that same ratio of in-house work?

Mr. MCCORMICK. Yes, sir, approximately.

ESTIMATED SAVINGS WITH A NEW BUILDING

Senator SCHWEIKER. How much did you say you might save by in-house work by a new location?

Mr. MCCORMICK. The estimates are in the range of $10 million to $12 million annually.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Originally, as I read your report, you didn't want to move from this location. You just wanted to build an annex. The National Capital Planning Commission pretty well said they wanted you to move. Is that about the gist of it?

Mr. MCCORMICK. Yes, sir. Two years ago the plan was for an eight-story addition to our present facility. The savings from a new facility will result primarily from lower materials-handling costs. We have an eight-story facility. It is inherently inefficient.

We are spending quite a bit of money moving paper and metals up and down these eight stories. The eight-story addition was an alternative which apparently was given very serious consideration because they couldn't find a suitable site within the District of Columbia. With the help of the National Capital Planning Commission and the visitor center concept, we have been able to find a suitable location within the District.

SQUARE FOOTAGE COSTS FOR NEW BUILDING

Senator SCHWEIKER. How many square feet is in that $158 million project?

Mr. MCCORMICK. 2.1 million, approximately. That, by the way, is less than in our present total of owned and leased facilities.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Is that $75 a square foot?

Mr. MCCORMICK. I think that is approximately correct. Is it not, Mr. De Vaughn?

Mr. DE VAUGHN. Cost per square foot.

Senator SCHWEIKER. That sounds rather high.

Mr. MCCORMICK. The building construction costs are about $140 million, so $70 to $75 is roughly the figure.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Go ahead.

Mr. MCCORMICK. I am not an engineer and really am not qualified to speak with respect to the relative costs. We have discussed this with GSA because it did strike me as high. This is heavily reinforced construction, which is capable of handling very heavy equipment, moving machinery, and would be really expensive to get the underpinning for. I would like, if I may, to provide a detailed technical analysis of that cost.

Senator HOLLINGS. Yes; please insert the analysis in the record. [The analysis follows:]

51-060 0-75 - pt.2 - 20