Lapas attēli


ATTACHMENT 14 (Target Dates For Y2K Compliant Implementation)

US GPO Milostono Chart

3123/08 Calendar Year 1997

Calendar Year 1998

CY 1999
1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q 1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q 1st Q 2nd Q

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


GPO FINANCES Question. At the end of fiscal year 1997 there was approximately $31 million in unobligated funding for Congressional Printing and Binding. Based on GPO's experience over the past several years, wouldn't it be more reasonable to propose a Congressional Printing and Binding appropriation of around $60 million, as opposed to the $84 million contained in GPO's fiscal year 1999 budget submission?

Answer. The $31 million was unexpended but was obligated to pay for congressional work that remained uncompleted or unbilled at year end. The requested level is necessary to avoid losses in fiscal year 1999 due to congressional work. The requested level is 6 percent below the actual expenditures against the fiscal year 1993 appropriation. GPO prepares estimates of fiscal year requirements for printing and binding based on historical data. The data is adjusted for cyclical trends such as first and second sessions of Congress and first year of a presidential administration term. The volume of Congressional Printing and Binding requirements for fiscal year 1997 was at an exceedingly low point.

Question. How much of that $31 million in unobligated funding for Congressional Printing and Binding remains unobligated? If the amount is less than $31 million, please provide a detailed accounting of its use.

Answer. At the end of fiscal year 1997 the Congressional Printing and Binding (CP&B) Appropriation account had an unexpended but obligated balance of $31 million. We estimated that the $31 million would be required to complete the remaining 2,100 orders for which obligation were established in fiscal year 1997.

The fiscal year 1997 CP&B account has made payments totaling $19 million since September 1997. Details of those expenditures are as follows:

Fiscal year 1997 congressional printing and binding

(Expenditures, Oct. 1, 1997 through Feb. 28, 1998)

[blocks in formation]


Miscellaneous publications

460,437 Miscellaneous printing and binding

2,290,629 Details to Congress

408,414 Document envelopes and franks

111,263 Business and committee calendars

242,614 Bills, resolutions, and amendments

2,894,602 Committee reports

556,031 Documents

518,207 Hearings

3,521,784 Committee prints

147,096 Total expenditures

19,161,921 This $19 million expenditure leaves a balance of $12 million in the CP&B Appropriation account to allow for the completion of Congressional work which originated in fiscal year 1997.

Question. You note that the Government Printing Office (GPO) generated a consolidated net income from continuing operations of $11.6 million for fiscal year 1997. You further note that this net income occurred primarily as a result of GPO fully recovering its costs as required by law. Please tell the committee if GPO fully recovered its costs in all areas of operation. If it did not, then please specify which areas over-recovered, which under-recovered, and which broke even.

Answer. GPO did not recover all of its cost in each area of operation. The GPO plant showed a gain of $12.3 million. During fiscal year 1997, GPO made an accounting adjustment to recover the portion of prior years' unrecovered cost associated with printing for Congress and the printing of publications for depository libraries, which resulted from the congressionally-mandated freeze on GPO plant rates. Congress had appropriated sufficient funds to cover all the cost but GPO was prevented from billing the total cost during the prior years due to the rate freeze. The amount of the adjustment was $12.8 million. Since the books were closed for the prior years, the proper accounting treatment was to record this money as current year income. This adjustment accounts for the entire gain in fiscal year 1997.

The Regional Printing operation under-recovered its cost by $544,000. The Printing Procurement program under-recovered its cost by $2.3 million, which is fourtenths of one percent of total program revenues. The Sales of Publications program over-recovered its cost by $1.3 million and the Agency Distribution program overrecovered its cost by $41,000.

Question. If GPO fully recovered its costs in fiscal year 1997, then why does the agency's year-end financial overview show net income of $12.28 million for the printing plant? Did GPO over recover from the Congress, or from in-house printing done for other agencies of the Federal government? Why and how was net income generated in this particular area of GPO's operation?

Answer. The accounting adjustment of $12.8 million made to recover prior years' cost was credited to the plant since the plant performed the work. GPO did not overrecover from the Congress or from executive branch agencies. In fact, the rate freeze caused the revolving fund to incur losses for 5 years because GPO was prevented from raising prices and therefore was unable to use the traditional mechanisms to fully recover its costs during those years. Net income was generated in plant operations due to the accounting adjustment for prior years amounting to $12.8 million.

Question. For the last several years GPO‘has reported "under-recovery" of costs for Congressional Printing and Binding. How can this be, particularly in light of the requirements of Title 44 that the Public Printer fully recover the costs for this service?

Answer. The under-recovery of cost for Congressional Printing and Binding was due to the rate freeze which prevented GPO from billing its total cost through the established rate structure. In addition, congressional workload decreased which caused GPO’s revenue to drop, thereby further exacerbating the under-recovery of cost condition.

Question. Please explain how it is that GPO's printing procurement program runs a deficit? Isn't there a surcharge placed on each printing job to recover the cost of the program? Does

GPO have a plan for turning this situation around? Answer. GPO's Printing Procurement Program has recently run a deficit due to a decline in workload. GPO's pricing policy is to add $5 plus six percent to the commercial cost of the job to fully recover program costs. In recent years, executive agencies either have reduced their printing requirements or have chosen to bypass GPO and print on their own. The impact on GPO is less revenue, which causes the Printing Procurement Program to run a deficit. GPO is actively marketing its services in an attempt to bring executive agency printing back to the Printing Procurement Program, where customers can receive the best product at the lowest possible price. If executive agencies continue to bypass GPO, an increase to the surcharge may be warranted.

Question. In the area of the SuDocs, is the excess funds from the sale of publication program used to help offset the cost of the depository library program?

Answer. Excess receipts from the sale of publications are not used to offset the cost of the depository library program. Excess receipts are held by the revolving fund as retained earnings for capital improvements and to absorb possible future under-recoveries. In the past, excess receipts from the Sales of Publications Program were used to supplement the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation. Special appropriation language required GPO to do this. The last year this occurred was fiscal

Question. Please tell the Committee what GPO's average daily cost for personnel is assume a five day work week, and 52 weeks a year.

Answer. The average daily cost for personnel is $768,000, assuming five days a week, 52 weeks a year.

REGIONAL PRINTING PLANT Question. Last year GPO closed all but one of its regional printing plants, the Denver plant. Why wasn't the Denver plant closed, too, and the printing from this plant outsourced to the private sector?

Answer. The Denver plant remains open to produce classified documents for agencies who have lost that capability through closure of their in-house facilities.

Question. How much longer is GPO going to sustain losses before the Denver facility breaks even, and what plans does GPO have for causing that facility to break even?

year 1990.

Answer. The Denver plant generates sufficient revenues to cover its direct expenses as well as make a contribution toward GPO's overhead expenses. If the Denver plant is closed, that contribution to overhead will have to come from somewhere else. The objective of the plant is to recover all costs, to reduce costs, and to provide service to core customers. Over the past 5 years, staffing at this plant has been reduced by 50 percent to the current level of 25 employees. This was accomplished through attrition and by cross-training remaining staff to perform multiple tasks. Plant prices are adjusted periodically to recover costs. Plant space has been reduced 25 percent. Approximately 1,000 square feet of warehouse space was released to GSA in January 1998 and approximately 5,000 square feet of light industrial space will be taken over by GSA in fiscal year 1999. There are 5 employees currently eligible to retire who will not be replaced, representing a potential savings of $175,000.

Question. What kind of work is done in the Denver plant?

Answer. The Denver plant is a secure facility. Over 50 percent of the jobs and 70 percent of the revenue are derived from producing classified/sensitive jobs. The plant's major customer is the Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, and El Paso Intelligence Center. The other major customers sending in classified/sensitive jobs are the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Defense, and the Office of Personnel Management. The plant is currently working with the Department of Energy to be a DOE-cleared facility. The DOE has determined that they would like to use the Denver plant for work that can no longer be produced in their in-house facilities because of planned plant closures.

Question. Is GPO aggressively marketing the Denver plant's capability, or just waiting for the work to come in the door?

Answer. Marketing is being done through the regional system by managers referring customers to the Denver plant when they have requirements for security work. This method had been very successful over the past 5 years. It is difficult to market classified security services publicly.

FUGITIVE DOCUMENTS Question. In recent years, a number of Federal agencies have entered into socalled “partnering programs” with private sector, or other non-federal organizations for the production of various publications. TI se partnering arrangements ha become an explanation for declining sales and fugitive documents in the Superintendent's various public access programs. If the Superintendent of Documents is aware that various government publications are being produced in this manner, why can't he make arrangements to get these publications into the depository and sales programs?

Answer. Agency partnerships with private sector firms tend to account for a low volume of fugitive products, but these tend to be key publications of broad public interest.

With regard to the sales program, a 1977 opinion by GPO's General Counsel cites Joint Committee on Printing Government Printing and Binding Regulation 41-1 as follows: "The Superintendent of Documents will sell only those publications printed by the Government Printing Office or ordered printed through the Government Printing Office or the Government Printing Office Regional Printing Procurement Offices * * *.” This language remains in the current Regulations, so publications printed by private sector partners of Government agencies are prohibited for sale through GPO. This is an issue that could be considered as a part of Title 44 reform.

When the depository program becomes aware of publications produced through such arrangements, every effort is made to obtain copies for the depository program. These efforts are often costly and time-consuming compared with obtaining copies of publications printed or procured through GPO. Examples of such efforts include: -Big Emerging Markets.—Developed by the International Trade Administration

and printed by a private firm in a joint venture with the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), this product was originally offered to the FDLP in microfiche format. This was unsuitable due to the presence of color charts in the product. Only after several months of discussion and congressional pressure did NTIS provide print copies. - Journal of the National Cancer Institute.—This periodical is now published by

Oxford University Press under the terms of a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) with the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Initially the FDLP was told by NCI that this arrangement rendered the Journal a nonGovernment product, even though editorial work is still being performed by NCI employees. After NCI officials discussed the matter with the Joint Committee on Printing, Oxford University Press agreed to furnish depository copies.

-Hispanics-Latinos: Diverse People in a Multicultural Society.—This title was

first published by a private sector trade association based in Washington, DC. Although the data was gathered and prepared at public expense, it was provided to this private group, which then copyrighted the publication and sold it for $10 per copy. Because Hispanics-Latinos was not printed through GPO, it was not initially available to the Depository Program. When this situation was brought to the attention of the Census Bureau through Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearings, the ureau reprinted the book through GPO

so depository copies would be available. -A Nation of Opportunity / KickStart Initiative.-The United States Advisory

Council on the National Information Infrastructure issued two reports that were initially published by West Publishing, a major private sector seller of legal publications and databases, although they were prepared by the Commission at public expense. Initially these publications were not made available to either the Superintendent of Documents Sales or Depository Programs. Once the Joint Committee on Printing was apprised of this situation it contacted the Commission. As a result, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce reprinted the publications through GPO in a much less elaborate black-and-white format and both the Sales and Depository Programs acquired copies. - Population of States and Counties of the United States: 1790–1990.—This Census publication was printed by NTIS rather than through GPO. Through what was described by Census as a "handshake agreement," NTIS asked that Census not make this publication available to either the Depository or Sales Programs for its first six months so as not to hurt its exclusive sale by NTIS. As a result of Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearings, GPO obtained a copy from Census shortly after its publication by NTIS. The Depository Program

printed copies for its use and Sales acquired copies for sale to the public. Question. Which agencies are doing printing on their own, and of these, which ones are not notifying the Superintendent of Documents of their publishing activities? Has the Superintendent attempted to work out an arrangement with known "fugitive” agencies? If so, what has been the result? If not, why not?

Answer. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Defense are some of the agencies that are procuring significant amounts of printing directly rather than through GPO. NTIS 80licits other agencies to obtain printing through them rather than through GPO.

Whenever agencies procure printing other than through GPO, problems tend to arise regarding their depository library responsibilities. Many agencies, although using GPO for printing some publications, are remiss in notifying the Superintendent of Documents of other documents. Agencies that we must approach most often regarding notification to the Superintendent of Documents include the Library of Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency (particularly the regional offices), the Central Intelligence Agency, some parts of the Department of Defense, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (particularly the National Geophysical Data Center.)

When individual fugitive documents are identified, we make every effort to include them in the FDLP and inform the issuing agency of its obligation to provide copies for the FDLP. The majority of fugitive documents, however, have been those of a scientific and technical nature that

have not been printed or procured through GPO.

Significant progress has been made with other Government information disseminators to expand the range of content available at no cost to depository libraries and the public. GPO has entered into agreements with the Department of Energy (DOE) and NTIS which will enable libraries to search and obtain U.S. Government scientific and technical information in electronic image format via the Internet on demand. The DOE project, a major step in the transition to a more electronic FDLP, will provide electronic versions of approximately 15,000 reports each year which were previously available to depository libraries in microfiche only. GPO and NTIS have worked out a pilot project that eventually should make approximately 55,000 scientific and technical documents each year available to depository libraries on demand over the Internet.

Another problem, however, is the number of information products now being published only on the Internet without notification to the FDLP. We have addressed this issue in our legislative proposal for Title 44 revision, which was submitted to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee on May 29, 1997. Meanwhile, we will continue working on the establishment of arrangements for access to such information with individual agencies.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »