bate that, which happens to be in the subcommittee on which I used to chair and now am the Ranking Member.

The fact is, does joint purchasing make sense? Does it effect savings? Same argument. And I think we will have to have that dis

cussion.

I think the Chairman is correct. We will have to come to an honest decision and try to do it the best and cheapest way possible.

Mr. PACKARD. A good example of our concern is finding that every agency has their own printing operation, under a new, modern 21st Century definition of printing. GSA has purchased 30 Docutechs that have the capability of doing humongous amounts of printing under the new technology.

Mr. HOYER. Which is about three-sevenths of what the Defense Department has purchased.

Mr. PACKARD. You make my point. The Defense Department is doing the same. We have got a Docutech in the basement of this building that I have seen operate. And we are seeing more and more of it emerging. Every agency doing their own printing.

I think that is the real dilemma that we are looking at. This becomes a maze in the future of duplication.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you. I know Mr. Thomas regrets that I have to leave.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, when he does leave we will lose a geographic argument here. With the Chairman from California and this gentleman from California discussing the printing office, I find oftentimes the closer your district gets to the District of Columbia, the more you support these kinds of large structures. So when he leaves, we will keep that in mind in terms of the geography of support for these large bureaucratic agencies.

Mr. PACKARD. I knew that would draw a response.

Mr. THOMAS. You won't be forgotten.

Mr. HOYER. There are a lot of good people, Mr. Chairman. I represent them. And whether they live close or whether they live in Mr. Thomas's district, for whom I fight very hard for their pay and benefits and for their working conditions and for their security, I want to continue to fight for that, whether they live in Mr. Thomas's district, your district or my district. They are called government employees. They do a darn good job for the taxpayer. They get short shrift by a lot of people sometimes and we ought to stand up for them.

The fact of the matter is, the people aren't the problem here. Mr. Thomas is correct. We ought to decide how we can best do this, how we can most economically do it, how we can do it serving our constituents and our democracy, and I presume we will make those decisions.

What I am asking for is-and I think, Mr. Chairman, that you will give us this opportunity-is to present the facts. We will be prepared and are prepared to stand or fall on the facts. A newsletter went out saying that we did $3 billion in printing. It was about 150 percent off in terms of its observations. What I am hoping is that we make decisions based on the information.

And yes, Mr. Thomas is correct, I will continue to try to represent people who live in my district and who work for the Federal

Government, wherever they live, as vigorously and effectively as I know how.

I thank the gentleman from California for his observation. Good to see you.

CONGRESSIONAL DETAILEES

Mr. PACKARD. Thank you very much.

Let me shift gears a little bit. Detailees are not restricted to GPO. We have them in many of our agencies. But in this instance we are finding a request for $5 million for detailees. And this frankly allows services to be performed for other committees or other agencies by these detailees but charged to GPO and their budget.

In some instances I think this gives a disincentive to these agencies and other committees to control their budget because they are not paying the bill for the detailees. Do you have an opinion on this?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Not only does it distort the budgets of those agencies that supply the detailees but it distorts the budgets of those operations and committees who receive the services.

And one of the things we have done in the Committee on Oversight for the 104th Congress is to restructure the relationship of detailees to committees, for example, in which we have required any committee requesting a detailee, first of all, to justify the need for that detailee, that the detailee will be detailed for no more than one year, and that the full cost of that detailee be paid by the committee, not just the salary, but the fringe benefits and full costs. That then reflects the true cost of the detailee operation, both for the agency supplying the detailee and for the committee or the other entity that is receiving the detailee.

I think you will find if we go to a full-cost reflection of the use of detailees, that their use will be greatly reduced. I think one of the reasons they were relied upon so much is that they were, quote, unquote, "free" in terms of their use. We know they are not. And it just distorts the system, and I don't think the system should be distorted.

Mr. PACKARD. In the 1996 budget request we see $3.8 million for detailees. In view of that, would you suggest we zero that out and require the agency or the committees that request the detailees to put it in their budget?

Mr. THOMAS. If in fact GPO is expending $3.8 million in support of other operations through the detailee structure, it seems to me the most efficient way to determine whether or not that $3.8 million is well spent is for those people who are receiving the service to decide whether or not they want to spend the $3.8 million. GPO should not be a passthrough operation, and the detailees in fact create a passthrough operation.

Mr. PACKARD. Thank you.

BOUND CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

The Joint Committee on Printing budget letter notes that twothirds of the 1989 bound Congressional Record and one-half of the 1990 bound volumes have been distributed to the depositories.

They are very expensive documents and they cost almost $5,000 per set to compose and print.

Since they are over five years old by the time they are distributed, do you believe that they are essential? And this is at a time when they already have the regular daily record that is sent to them on their files. Do you think that there is a need to continue to do that?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, although there is a life cycle for information, I believe that a final compendium not only is very useful and necessary, but it is I believe, the epitome of the requirement in Article I for the time-to-time information to the public of the Congressional Record.

I wouldn't quarrel so much with the need to do it. I guess I would quarrel with the manner in which we are doing it. You mentioned the 1989 Congressional Record. It is being compiled and disseminated and delivered in essentially the same way that the 1889 record was delivered.

Surely we can update that process. The information itself I believe is essential. The manner and the method of creation and distribution is archaic. And we wouldn't have to do it for $4,900 a set if we would utilize new technology in doing that.

DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

Mr. PACKARD. Let's talk further about the depository library program. It is popular throughout the country. We have 1400 Federal depositories. The joint committee staff oversees this program. The GPO has budgeted $25.6 million for the program in 1996.

Do you have any special plans for this program that will affect the budget levels?

Mr. THOMAS. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I think the whole structure needs to be rethought. I don't know at this stage whether or not we are going to have significant budgetary impact. But at a time when at the local level, community after community is making a very tough decision about what to fund and what not to fund, I deplore the fact that libraries seem to be near the top of the list in cutting back hours, in reducing staff, in actually closing facilities.

I think, given my background in education, that this is not a good decision. So I clearly want to underscore the point that I support libraries, I support the concept of depository libraries that would retain-designated libraries retaining government documents. But again, I think the designation, the location, the dissemination of information, the relationship to the most well-known library in the world, the Library of Congress, all need to be rethought.

My belief is that in that rethinking there clearly are savings to be made, not to the detriment of libraries or learning or information, but in the way in which the structure currently operates. And that is one of our goals.

I just want to say parenthetically, in terms of the gentleman from Maryland's statement, the largest employer in my district is government. I represent a lot of acreage that the Federal Government oversees in the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the National Parks. I also have two major military instal

lations, and I have a lot of retirees. The question is not Federal employees. The question is who, what, when, and how. That is what this whole rethinking is about.

Mr. PACKARD. There are other questions we may ask, and I am not going to ask you to stay longer. You have given us more time than I thought you would be able to, and I appreciate that very much. If we have further questions, we would be more than happy to submit them to you and ask you to answer for the record.

I am going to conclude, then, unless you have something further to say.

By the way, just one last question. Did you receive a letter from the Senate recently, to Members of the joint committee? I would be interested in your response.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman, and I guess it comes under the heading that change is always difficult. It was signed by a number of folk who have a long attachment to the status quo, and they were concerned that as the Chairman of the joint committee this year, that I may be interested in making more fundamental change than they might be interested in, and that they were solicitous of me coming before them and having them basically determine what I might say in front of this group or any other group about change.

And I just have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that that was one of the reasons I discussed my position with the Speaker as recently as last night. He reconfirmed that his position is my position. I am going to reconfirm the Senate leadership's position, and that I admire you and the work that you have indicated to me you are anxious to undertake. I share in the vision that you have. That vision is a better system that does what we believe should be done better, at a cheaper cost.

Change is always difficult. Your position is, I think, envious. You are at the faucet. You can turn it on or turn it off. I can determine where the hose is placed, whether it is on the lawn or in the flower bed. But you determine whether or not water flows through that hose. Mr. Chairman, I would urge you to assist me in making sure that the public's water is well managed.

Mr. PACKARD. Well, I appreciate that. We certainly want to cooperate with your authorizing committee, the joint committee, as we look at the suggestion you have made to sunset it, whether it be this year or whether it be in the 1996 budget year, or not at all.

Obviously we can't make that decision unilaterally but we certainly appreciate the thought that you have shared with us in terms of what our options are.

We are looking forward to working with you. Thank you very much.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, whatever decision you make, I want you to feel comfortable that we will carry out the examination and we will carry out the restructuring, whatever the decision that you make, because we are committed to do it.

Mr. PACKARD. I understand that. Thank you very much.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1995.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WITNESSES

MICHAEL F. DI MARIO, PUBLIC PRINTER

JAMES N. JOYNER, DEPUTY PUBLIC PRINTER

WAYNE P. KELLEY, SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

WILLIAM M. GUY, BUDGET OFFICER

Mr. PACKARD. Now if Michael DiMario would come and bring whom he wishes from his staff, we would appreciate it.

Mr. DIMARIO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PACKARD. Good morning. Would you like to introduce your associates?

Mr. DIMARIO. Yes, sir, I would. To my immediate right is Mr. James Joyner, the Deputy Public Printer. To his right, Mr. Wayne Kelley, who is our Superintendent of Documents. And to his right, Mr. William Guy, who is our Budget Officer.

Mr. PACKARD. Thank you very much.

We certainly welcome you to the hearing and the table as our witnesses for this next panel. And it might be interesting to note for the record that Mr. DiMario was nominated by the President in October of 1993, was sworn in on November 23rd of 1993, so you have served for better than a year. We are grateful to have not only your experience but your presence here.

The 1996 appropriation request totals $137.4 million, which is an increase of $15.4 million over the 1995 budget appropriation. That is a 12.6 percent increase.

There are two appropriation accounts involved: the Printing and Binding, and the Superintendent of Documents programs. In addition, under the government corporation law we authorize the operation of the Government Printing Office revolving fund, and there is language in the budget that accomplishes that in this request, and an appropriation has been included to subsidize the revolving fund account for certain capital expenditures. And I believe that you have a general statement.

I have read your prepared statement, incidentally, and I really did appreciate the thoroughness of your statement, especially with members of the committee being new, myself included, although I have served on the subcommittee for at least one term, but I did appreciate much of the background that you have given in your statement.

I have read it, so you won't need to read it again to me, but we would appreciate you summarizing and making any other statements that you would wish.