« ZurückWeiter »
mine the total amount of printing and where that was being done? I understood this was an effort to reduce the total and also to learn what was contracted versus what was done in-house?
Mr. BARRETT. I think one of the OMB surveys had to do with plant closings. They asked us for technical assistance in devising questionnaires and a little bit of data processing service. We analyzed figures. We helped them. About 1,025 plants were identified as perhaps not necessary or which should be converted from printing plants to duplicating facilities.
After the agencies had a chance to rebut that, I am told by people at OMB, it looks like at present it is possible that 130 civilian agency plants may be closed.
Mr. Fazio. About ten percent?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. And eleven plants in the Department of Defense.
Mr. Fazio. Could you supply that for the record-maybe we won't put it all in the record, but we would like to see that material. Could you provide it to us?
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. Be glad to.
(CLERK'S NOTE.—The results of the OMB survey will be held in subcommittee files for a short time period.]
Mr. Fazio. The initial estimate was somewhat inflated. The opposition was probably great, also. I have a feeling perhaps what we would find when we see that data is that the agencies made a strenuous justification of the need for the exemption based on the timeliness of their own operations?
Mr. BARRETT. Certainly.
Mr. Fazio. Obviously you are not totally objective, but we constantly look to you to get a handle on this. From your perspective, do you think the reasons for making exceptions to the rule that at least 60 percent of the time brings work to you are valid? How would you evaluate this 40 percent that goes elsewhere? Do you think we should be continuing to pursue printing more through the GPO? Where do you draw the line between what is normal and justifiable for an agency's independence and mission needs and what is an unjustifiable or ineffective deviation from the policy of using GPO as the government's printer?
Mr. BARRETT. As the government's acting Public Printer, my honest answer would be I think we should do most of the printing. As a printing officer who came from a federal agency several years ago, I know there are printing requirements that have to be done on the Naval base, the military base or the agency that has to be done more quickly than GPO can do it. I think there is a middle ground.
CLOSE TO MIDDLE GROUND Mr. Fazio. Do you think we are close to the middle ground or do you think there is still room to get closer to the middle ground?
Mr. BARRETT. I think we are perhaps at the middle ground or we could go a little higher in GPO.
Mr. Fazio. In this study you referred to, do you think the ten percent figure is a reasonable amount of progress? Do you think we may have caved a little bit to the turf?
Mr. BARRETT. I think there was caving, yes.
Mr. Fazio. Could you tell us how many printing plants there are or will be in the federal service in addition to those that you operate?
Mr. BARRETT. Does anyone know that? We don't know that offhand. We can supply that for the record.
[The information follows:
Response. There are approximately 252 printing plants in the federal service in addition to those operated by GPO.
Mr. Fazio. I have several questions that I will submit to be answered for the record in order to further the area of the printing plants discussion.
[The questions and responses follow:]
Response. We have been informed by the Joint Committee on Printing that there are approximately 250 authorized printing plants operated by the Executive Branch.
Question. Last year, the Public Printer mentioned that many of these plants should be consolidated or shut down. Has that happened to any of them?
Response. To date we have received requests from two Executive Agencies for contracts to cover their printing needs that were previously performed at their in-plant facilities.
Question. Update the revenue schedules from page 466 of last year's hearings. Response.
$523,576,074 $559,320,356 $586,585,172 $618,028,748 109,686,537 102,007,099 107,556,037 105,237,346 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
1,644,409 2,066,545 2,184,791 2,301,906 634,907,020 663,394,000 696,326,000 725,568,000
Mr. Fazio. Mr. Barrett, we note that the workforce has been reduced by two hundred fifty-four people since October 1, 1982.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fazio. Could you give us some background to indicate what has been happening there in terms of this sort of annual attrition?
Mr. BARRETT. Most of it is attrition.
Mr. Fazio. Could you tell us what is happening that allows those kinds of reductions in manpower to take place?
Mr. BARRETT. Conversion from hot metal to electronic photocomposition. We do have—have had in the past an aging workforce. It is time for them to move up and out. We have not been replacing them. We still have a hiring freeze.
Mr. LEWIS. May I follow up on that, Mr. Chairman?
COST OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, earlier today Mrs. Boggs and I were at another subcommittee. The Veterans people were before us. They were talking about, under the directive phasing out some 29 employees that they had in their own print operation; we asked questions relative to their relationship with GPO, would they be using your services, would they be contracting out.
The bottom line was that, I gather, they were going to be phasing out their employees. I am not sure whether the attrition takes care of them or not, similar to your response to the Chairman. They indicated specifically, their analysis suggests to them, tells them that while they will have six employees remaining to handle the contracting, that the bottom line or net cost is going to be an added cost to the government for their printing services.
I am not sure how they figured that out or how those umbers worked out, but it seems to me if we have several agencies of government addressing themselves to the same thing, maybe we need some help figuring out how we can put together an analysis as to what the effects of this movement is in the government, what role GPO should be playing.
Certainly, if the marketplace is supposed to work, we shouldn't be having added costs.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
Mr. BARRETT. I can try. Almost all of the work that will accrue because of the closing of plants will be procured commercially and come through GPO. We have fast moving contracts. We do attach to that a surcharge. However, the consolidation of services and one agency doing most of the contracting out should result in an overall savings to the government.
Tommy, do you want to speak to this in more detail?
CONTINGENCY PLAN Mr. CULLEN. We have developed a contingency plan for handling the work of these plants if they are shut down by OMB. We have developed a very simplified contract to take care of this type of work. On our regular contracting, we normally charge a 6 percent surcharge to the agency with the maximum surcharge of $2,500.
For this particular type of work, we have written a new contract which is a direct deal, direct pay, whereby we will only be charging the agencies for establishing the contract and we will not be putting the normal surcharge on the work that they have done on this contract. They will be paying it directly.
Mr. LEWIS. It occurred to me, Mr. Chairman, if I were running my own private business and hired six people to handle printing contracts, I could be doing a lot of contracting. If that just reflects the Veterans Administration on the one hand and we have multiples all across the government, there ought to be a better answer.
I have asked the staff of HUD and independent agencies to give us the material the Veterans Administration sent to us, their analyses. It seems to me we ought to try to collect those and figure out if there is a major policy adjustment needed here.
Mr. Fazio. I appreciate that line of questioning. Perhaps we could join and assist in that through this process.
Mrs. Boggs. Mr. Chairman?
NUMBER OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES
Mrs. Boggs. In the staff reductions through attrition, where you have had 254 people leave, were there women and minorities in managerial positions among them?
Mr. BARRETT. I think we do have some information on that. Can we provide it for the record? Mrs. Boggs. Thank you. [The information follows:] The GPO defines managers as heads of departments and services and above. Utilizing that definition, no minority and one female manager left the agency during fiscal year 1983.
REACHED A PLATEAU Mr. Fazio. On that point, Mrs. Boggs reiterates that there were some 250 or so reductions in staff and the average has been 300 to 400 per year since 1979. Have you reached a plateau? Have we pretty much begun to see a decline in the elimination of positions that will result from the modification and updating in printing technology?
Mr. BARRETT. Our best projection, Mr. Chairman, is we expect another 200 for each of the next two years.
Mr. FAZIO. But it will be less than it has been?
Mr. Fazio. The binding as well is a factor? A large reduction occurred in part because of the new bindery line. Is that also factored in. It is not just a change in the printing technology?
Mr. BARRETT. We reduced the number of people required on the bindery line from 94 to 25. Those people displaced were reassigned somewhere else in the bindery.
Mr. Fazio. I have a question for the record I will submit in regard to that.
(The question and response follow:]
Question.-For the record, update the summary of your workforce statistics on page 478 of last year's hearing.
CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING AND BINDING Mr. Fazio. Let's talk briefly about Congressional Printing and Binding. The request is for $80,879,000, a decrease of $5.7 million.
Do you have a statement you want to make or a comment? I have questions along those lines.
Mr. BARRETT. Volume and rates in all categories of Congressional Printing and Binding went down with the exception of two, which were Miscellaneous Printing and Binding and the House and Senate Documents. All the other categories came down.
REASONS FOR REDUCTIONS
Mr. Fazio. Let me read through what we have determined from the materials you submitted. A 7.9 percent reduction in the Congressional Record, 10 percent reduction in details to Congress, 30 percent reduction in committee calendars, 21 percent reduction in committee reports.
Could you indicate why you believe these kinds of reductions have been made? Is it because the Congress is more cost conscious? Is it length of time in session?
Mr. KLUGH. It is a combination of factors.
Mr. KLUGH. We look at the different sessions of Congress, first session, second session, and factor in such things as election years, and look at the historical trend and volume. Taking those trends into consideration we estimate what the rates and volume will be for the next session.
We are now estimating for 1985. We estimate the volume and then look at the actual rates incurred. We make our best projection of what is going to happen in those rates; what efficiencies we have, will they continue; what new efficiencies will take place. Then we take the rates and the volumes, work the arithmetic, and come out with a total figure.