The Joint Committee on Printing hereby transmits its budget estimate of $777,000 covering the operations and oversight activities of the Joint Committee for Fiscal Year 1997. I have included within this letter a summary of the activities and projects which the Committee has addressed within the past year. Jurisdiction, Authority and Responsibilities The Joint Committee on Printing is authorized under Title 44, United States Code, to act as the policymaker and overseer of printing, binding and distribution activities of the Federal Government, and functions as the "Board of Directors" for the Government Printing Office (GPO). Section 103, Title 44, United States Code, gives the Joint Committee legislative authority to *...use any measures it considers necessary to remedy neglect, delay, duplication or waste in the public printing and binding and the distribution of Government publications." The Joint Committee continues to follow this mandate by promoting cost effective and efficient printing and dissemination policies across all branches of the Government. With the advent of the new majority in Congress, the Joint Committee along with other legislative entities, has begun to look at new and more cost efficient methods of delivering the government's information to the public, as well as reexamining possible alternatives to the methods and structure in which Congress is obtaining its printed information. The Government Printing Office, by virtue of its mission, is a focal point in implementing these changes, which will be outlined in this letter. I. ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY TO AFFECT THE FORMULATION OF THE 1. Reinforcing the Most Cost Efficient Method of Obtaining Government While the Joint Committee experienced a significant reduction in personnel during the past year, it has continued to promote and monitor compliance with Title 44. The law requires that, with some exceptions, executive agency printing and duplicating procurements must be made by or through the Government Printing Office. The restriction includes not only procurements from commercial 2 contracts but also procurements from other Government organizations. These organizations are operating expanded in-house facilities and are offering printing and duplicating services to other agencies at higher costs than GPO services furnished through private sector contracts. Confusing signals are being sent by OMB and the National Performance Review to Executive Branch agencies regarding compliance within the framework of section 207, Title 44. While the Comptroller General confirmed that section 207 was binding and enforceable, the General Services Administration, the Defense Printing Service and the National Technical and Information Service within the Department of Commerce have ignored, and, in fact, have increased their efforts to obtain printing and duplicating jobs from other Executive Branch agencies. The Joint Committee has taken actions with regard to each of these agencies which are detailed later. 2. ICP Initiatives, Policies and Activities Affecting Executive Branch Printing Activities The Joint Committee has long maintained that in-house printing and duplicating facilities are more costly to the government and that substantial savings can be achieved by contracting this work through a centrally managed competitive bid process with the private sector. Approximately 85% of Executive Branch work directed to GPO is obtained through competitive procurements, making it one of the most successful competitively-bid programs within the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the General Services Administration is an Agency that has ignored directives from the Joint Committee to close its remaining printing plants. Informal reports reveal that printing facilities in Salt Lake City, Utah and Fort Worth, Texas, are still operating and producing and/or directly purchasing printing and duplicating for other Agencies despite the revised section 207 language that prohibits such activity and the withdrawal of printing plant charters. The Defense Printing Service, at the beginning of this year, submitted requests to decharter 16 of their authorized printing plants because of declining volumes of work. In most cases, DPS proposed that these facilities be replaced with duplicating centers. However, a JCP staff review found that many of these sites had actually increased both volume and costs. The Government Printing and Binding Regulations, issued by the Joint Committee on Printing, requires Executive Branch Agencies operating printing plants to continue the submission of reports outlining specifics on personnel, equipment, volume of work and all costs in order to monitor the efficiencies of these facilities. In some cases, these reporting requirements have been extended to include the larger duplicating facilities. Of the 147 JCPauthorized printing plants, the Defense Printing Service currently operates 96 of these facilities. The Joint Committee believes that there are widespread excesses throughout the Federal Government relating to extremely costly equipment acquisitions for unnecessary in-house facilities, as well as Executive Branch agencies ignoring and interpreting existing statutes in ways that will benefit their Agency, but not necessarily the American taxpayer. Ignoring the current printing laws increases the likelihood of government documents not being placed in the public domain and made available to the American public through the Depository Library System or the Superintendent of Document Sales Program. An example that illustrates this concern is the recent opening of a joint GSA/FAA operated "duplicating facility, located at the airport within the FAA's Oklahoma City Training Facility. This expanded facility was opened with equipment and staff from GSA's former downtown duplicating facility, the small on-site FAA duplicating facility, and the acquisition of expensive new equipment. (This merger was planned and underway prior to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building - the GSA duplicating facility was located in another downtown Federal Building and was not destroyed 3 during the bombing). Duplicating and some printing jobs are now transported to the airport for production and returned back downtown to the originating agency-an unnecessary and expensive way to do business. GPO's nearby satellite procurement office and the private sector have seen a decline in work requests since the opening of this facility. GPO could establish less expensive, competitively bid contracts to have commercial printing and duplicating firms pick up the work at each agency and deliver it when completed. Not only would this be less expensive on an operational basis, but the government would avoid the capital investment in equipment. The Joint Committee continues to monitor the activities of the Defense Printing Service (DPS), and has throughout the last year approved 16 requests to close JCP-chartered printing plants, because of reduced workloads and costs. However, JCP staff review of the information furnished within DPS annual plant reporting information forms, has found that, in a number of cases, the actual workloads and operating expenses are increased. This situation is the result of significant capital expense investment in equipment by DPS, rather than directing printing and duplicating work to the private sector through economical contracts established by GPO. DPS has also been acquiring very expensive new electronic printing systems for installation in their duplicating facilities, and there are some indications that DPS plans to use these in-house systems to produce non-DoD printing and duplicating requirements in partnership with the General Services Administration. Additionally, it appears that DPS has not been charging non-DoD agencies for the full cost recovery, as required in the Defense Business Operating Fund (DBOF) regulations. The Defense Printing Service originally requested language in the Senate-passed Defense Authorization Bill to exempt the entire Defense Department from submitting required reports about all printing activities to the JCP. The section would have negated Congressional reporting requirements from sections 103, 501 and 502 of Title 44 that provide the JCP with essential information on acquisitions of printing equipment, printing plant operations and inventory, as well as printing jobs which exceed the JCP printing limitations. The net effect would have resulted in Congress having no oversight of DoD's in-house and commercial printing and duplicating activities nor their compliance with Appropriations laws and Title 44. This language, at my request and with the cooperation of Vice Chairman John Warner, was dropped from the Senate bill during Conference proceedings. C. National Technical Information Service (NTIS) – Department of Commerce The Joint Committee has long been concerned about the activities of the Department of Commerce's NTIS that duplicate printing, duplicating, binding, public distribution and electronic information operations already available through the Government Printing Office at less cost. Last year with the assistance of the Appropriations Committees, the Commerce appropriation was reduced from $12 to $8 million for NTIS growth. However, NTIS refuses to provide the electronic files it produces with its appropriation to the depository library program through the GPO Access System, without charge. NTIS will not even furnish microfiche of these documents, contrary to the provisions of section 1900, Title 44, USC. Although the GPO and the JCP have continued to try to work with NTIS, the situation has not improved. NTIS has recently published at least two publications, that were created with appropriated funds, through a single source private publisher and has withheld these products from the public domain and the depository library system. NTIS has just recently offered to provide microfiche copies of one of these publications, but microfiche can not clearly communicate the complex information printed in three colors within the particular publication. More recently, NTIS has, in direct violation of Title 44, USC and the amended section 207, PL 103-283, solicited printing firms for interest in directly providing printing, duplicating, and related services. NTIS has been marketing its printing and duplicating services to various internal Commerce program areas as well as to other Departments and Agencies, again in direct violation of statutes. The Joint Committee has just learned that NTIS intends, with the agreement of the Bureau of Export Administration, to halt distribution of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to more than 9,000 paid subscribers through the Superintendent of Documents. NTIS now claims to be the sole distributer of the EAR and is offering the public more expensive subscriptions for printed or electronic versions. The Department of Commerce did not even consider distributing the EAR via the GPO Access System that would have made the data available to the public on an electronic basis at a fraction of the $250 rate NTIS is now charging the public. The Joint Committee on Printing has written to the Secretary of Commerce on these matters. and has not yet received a reply. JCP has contacted the Department of Commerce Inspector General who has agreed to expand an investigation of NTIS to specifically address these apparent violations of statute. Additional assistance will be sought from other Departmental Inspectors General as appropriate. These matters may likely require further attention by the Appropriations Committees. During the past year, the Joint Committee on Printing has found various organizations within the Department of Labor to be directly acquiring printing in clear violation of the provisions of sections 207 and 501, Title 44 USC. In each situation, the matter was referred to the Inspector General at the Department of Labor. As a result of the IG's involvement, payments were denied and management controls were modified to avoid recurrence of the problems. In one situation, Labor directly acquired a rush job from a local duplicating firm for approximately $32,000. Payment for this work was stopped and a review indicated that GPO could have contracted for the identical job on the same rush schedule for only $3,000. However, had the job been printed in concert with the guidelines contained in the Government Printing and Binding Regulations, it could have been delivered on-time for less than $500. E. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Inspector General Investigation The Joint Committee on Printing sought the assistance of the NASA Inspector General in redirecting printing procurements by various NASA facilities operated by prime contractors back into compliance with the provisions of amended section 207, P.L. 103-283 and Title 44 USC. NASA's IG determined that, with the exception of some contractor-purchased business cards for employees paid for with appropriated funds, all printing activities were in concert with the statutes, as NASA chose to apply them. JCP advised the NASA Administrator that such a conclusion was not acceptable nor in compliance with the statutes as written, and referred the matter back to NASA. During the past year, NASA has recovered the funds for the business cards purchased with appropriated funds, but has refused to deal with the larger issues. NASA maintains, using the President's July 1994, signing statement on the amendment to section 207, that many publications produced by prime contracts, such as those at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, are not Government publications and can be procured without respect to Title 44. The contractor's funding for such development and printing activities are fully paid for with appropriated monies. F. Veterans Affairs Inspector General Investigation After several years working with the Department of Veterans Affairs' Inspector General regarding several direct printing procurements in violation of statute, an extensive IG report issued at the end of 1994 recommended a number of management improvements. During 1995, VA printing |