[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRANSFORMING GPO FOR THE 21ST CENTURY AND BEYOND: PART 2
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 18, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
28-270 WASHINGTON: 2018
_____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001
Committee on House Administration
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi, Chairman
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania,
Chairman Ranking Member
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia ZOE LOFGREN, California
MARK WALKER, North Carolina JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
TRANSFORMING GPO FOR THE 21ST CENTURY AND BEYOND: PART 2
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:32 a.m., in Room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gregg Harper
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Harper, Davis, Comstock, Walker,
Smith, Loudermilk, Brady, and Raskin.
Staff Present: Sean Moran, Staff Director; Kim Betz, Deputy
Staff Director/Policy and Oversight; Cole Felder, Deputy
General Counsel; Rob Taggart, Legislative Clerk; Bob Tapella,
Professional Staff; Erin McCracken, Communications Director;
Reynold Schweickhardt, Director of Technology Policy; Jamie
Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy
Staff Director; Eddie Flaherty, Minority Democratic Chief
Clerk; and Matt Pinkus, Minority Senior Policy Advisor.
The Chairman. I now call to order the Committee on House
Administration for purposes of today's hearing titled
``Transforming the Government Publishing Office for the 21st
Century and Beyond: Part 2.'' The hearing record will remain
open for 5 legislative days so Members may submit any materials
they wish to be included. A quorum is present, so we may
proceed.
Director Vance-Cooks, I appreciate your willingness to
reappear today as we continue to fulfill our oversight
responsibilities. When you testified in May, the Committee
focused on several topics, and there have been a number of
followup questions. While GPO responded to the questions--with
1,100 pages of material, I might add--a number of them, we
believe, need further clarification and in some cases more
direct answers.
I will keep my remarks brief to allow more time for
questions and answers. However, I would like to take this
opportunity to make a few observations that will help inform
our discussion this morning.
First, GPO in many ways operates like a private sector
business wholly owned by the Federal Government. With the
exception of administering the Superintendent of Documents
program, GPO provides products and services to other government
agencies and charges them for their products and services. Yet,
I think it is fair to say technology has definitely impacted
this business model. And while GPO has tried to transform
itself, it has been hindered by many factors, including
outdated statutes.
Congress has long been concerned about the impact
technological advances have had on GPO's mission. Over the
years, a number of studies have been conducted and
recommendations made to modernize GPO. However, none of these
reports have really peeled back the layers of GPO to understand
its operations in such a way as to make those meaningful
reforms. And I look forward to seeing the clarification and
additional information we need in order to start making those
necessary reforms.
Again, I would like to thank Director Vance-Cooks for being
here today and her assistance in this effort.
I would now like to recognize my colleague and the Ranking
Member of this Committee, Mr. Brady, for the purpose of
providing an opening statement.
Mr. Brady.
[The statement of The Chairman follows:]
COMMITTEE INSERT
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the Chairman for calling this hearing. And
I want to thank the Public Printer, Davita Vance-Cooks, for
making her third appearance before this Committee in just 6
months. In her previous visits, I have found Ms. Vance-Cooks'
testimony informative and forthcoming, and I think that
demonstrates the leadership and skill set she brings to the
Government Publishing Office.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to dive deeper into GPO's
response to a lengthy set of questions for the record that were
sent after our previous hearing just 2 months ago. Hopefully,
we will come away from today with a better understanding of how
the agency operates in the 21st century and what resources it
needs to continue the high level of performance we have come to
expect from the Public Printer and the GPO.
I am also happy to see our labor brothers here from the
Teamsters that are here.
Thank you for showing up. Thank you for your interest.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Brady follows:]
COMMITTEE INSERT
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Brady.
Does any other Member wish to be recognized for the
purposes of an opening statement?
Seeing none, I would now like to introduce our witness.
Davita Vance-Cooks became the 27th individual to direct the
U.S. Government Publishing Office in 2013. Ms. Vance-Cooks is
the first woman and African American to lead the agency and has
served with a variety of management roles at GPO since you
first arrived in 2004, I believe.
And we welcome you back, Ms. Vance-Cooks.
The Committee has received your written testimony and you
will have 5 minutes to present a summary of that. And, of
course, you know how the drill works on the timekeeping there,
and the light will turn red when your time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes Director Vance-Cooks for purposes
of an opening statement.
Ms. Cooks.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVITA VANCE-COOKS, DIRECTOR, UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Chairman Harper, Ranking Member Brady, and
Members of the Committee, good morning. Thank you for inviting
me to join in the discussion of ``Transforming the GPO for the
21st Century and Beyond: Part 2.''
As I stated in my hearing May 17, 2017, on the same topic,
the GPO is in a good place, a strong position to meet the needs
of the 21st century and beyond. We are a publisher, a print
broker, product integrator, and developer of digital
information platforms. We are financially strong, with clean
audited opinions, and we have worked hard to manage our costs.
In Fiscal Year 2018, for the third year in a row, we
submitted a flat funding appropriation request. We are using
digital technology to make information more available, improve
our products and services, provide better customer service, and
strengthen our internal operations, while controlling our
costs. And these actions benefit our stakeholders: Congress,
government agencies, and Federal depository libraries.
Over the decades, the GPO has been successful in using the
framework of Title 44 to introduce new technology and implement
new processes to accommodate and support changing stakeholder
requirements. The most successful reform effort of the past
generation was passage of a simple measure, the GPO Electronic
Information Enhancement Act of 1993, codified in chapter 41 of
Title 44, which gave us the authority to implement all of the
digital innovations of recent years.
To further strengthen the GPO for the 21st century and
beyond, I propose a careful and thoughtful reevaluation of all
chapters of Title 44, to ensure that Federal publications are
produced as economically and efficiently as possible, that they
remain permanently accessible to the public, and that such
provisions reflect the shift toward digital, while respecting
the role of tangible print.
The review of GPO conducted by the National Academy of
Public Administration at the request of Congress and released
in 2013 found that the agency's mission remains critical to
American democracy in the digital age. The evaluation of Title
44 must preserve the substantive provisions of the law that
enables GPO to effectively carry out its mission today, while
addressing the need to revise the provisions that are no longer
necessary in the 21st century.
There are a number of provisions that over time have become
obsolete simply because our stakeholders and GPO have changed
the way in which we operate. For example, in chapter 11, there
is actually a provision specifying the typeface that is
required for an annual report, and clearly that is obsolete.
Chapter 13 lists specific publications and the amount that we
have to print, but the language in chapter 13 originates back
to the act of January 12, 1895, and reflects the needs and
priorities of the late 19th century.
Today, the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, the
Office of the Clerk of the House, and the heads of the
agencies, they order printing in the requisitions for what they
need, and that is why we publish the products requisitioned by
our stakeholders in accordance with the specifications. This
action allows us to meet the nature of the law.
In terms of chapter 19, I have asked the Depository Library
Council, the advisory committee to the Office of GPO Director,
to work with the Federal depository libraries to identify
changes. As a result of our multiple visits to the FDLP
libraries and listening to their concerns about flexibility and
permanent public access content, I would say that it is time
for us to explore the option of grant-making authority for the
GPO, so that we can support innovative digital initiatives in
the library community. This is an exciting idea. We call it
#FDLPGrants. We love the idea.
In conclusion, GPO is strong. Conducted properly, a
revision of Title 44 will make us stronger.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I conclude my
remarks, and I am losing my voice.
[The statement of Ms. Vance-Cooks follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Director Davita Vance-
Cooks, for your testimony, and your presence here today is
greatly appreciated.
At this time, rather than recognize myself, because I know
he is going to be on a tight schedule, the Chair will now
recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walker, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Chairman Harper, for your
indulgence. Much appreciated.
Thank you again, Director Vance-Cooks, for being with us
today.
In the executive branch, procurements under $3,500 in value
are considered micropurchases, something I am sure we are all
aware of, and normally made using a Smart Pay card. GSA looks
to, quote, ``total cost to the government,'' end quote, in
assessing these micropurchases. And though the government
doesn't get the absolutely lowest price possible for the
product or service, the total cost for these micropurchases,
including processing the procurement, is less than it would be
if they were done through any other procurement vehicle.
With this in mind, I would like to look at the 59,681
micropurchase-level print orders that GPO processes through
procurement, vehicles other than GPOExpress and the Online
Paper Store. Now, by the math that some of our diligent people
have worked on, the average micropurchase is $656.
So here is my first question: How much does the GPO charge
an agency to process this said $656 print order?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I would have to take a good look at that
data and get back to you.
[The information follows:]
******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********
Mr. Walker. Okay. Do you know how much it costs to process
the order, including maybe the functions and the overhead, or
is that something also that you need to do some research on?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I would need to do----
Mr. Walker. Is your mike on there?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Pardon me. Excuse me.
You are asking me about the cost of the micropurchases and
how it compares to what GPO actually produces, and you are
asking for the rate.
I can tell you that overall and collectively the GPO's
printing procurement process is much lower than it is available
to procure it elsewhere. If you are asking me about the
specifics of a particular product, I would have to get back to
you to give you the actual rates.
Mr. Walker. All right. Let's zoom out for just a second
then, and let's talk about maybe a general question that would
address both of these. Can you confirm that the GPO practices
accurate and detailed cost accounting, yes or no?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I can confirm that we attempt to do so. I
can also confirm that when you talk about or look at the
hearing that we had back in May, I had identified a strategic
priority of implementing a brand new cost accounting system.
This is because I recognize that we need to do a better job of
cost accounting. In fact, it is listed as one of the items in
the IG report. So I can definitively say that it is something
we should work on, but I think it is better than other areas as
well.
Mr. Walker. You say something that we should work on. Do
you feel like there is an implementation process? Are you
making some progress in that area?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Oh, absolutely, yes, we are. In fact, we
are in the process of working with an outside vendor to improve
our cost accounting process.
You are so right, Congressman Walker, when you talk about
cost accounting as a measure in which we must improve. We have
identified that over and over again, not only in our IG
reports, but also in our strategic priorities. And it is
definitely on the list.
Mr. Walker. Thank you. You also testified previously that
there are 106 employees directly involved in print procurement
at GPO central and regional offices and another, I believe, 44
full-time equivalents in finance that support commercial print
procurement.
In reviewing the volume and scope of printing procured from
the private sector--of course, this is excluding GPOExpress and
the Online Paper Store, that are, I believe, relatively
automated and electronic--these are some statistics that we
have come up with.
Of the nearly 70,000 orders, 86 percent were low-dollar
value, averaging only about $600 each. For high-value orders,
though, I certainly understand the importance of having GPO's
printing professionals offering guidance as a service to the
agency, and ultimately we believe benefits the taxpayer.
However, I have a hard time understanding or trying to
figure out the value of the GPO hand-processing basically what
comes to 60,000 low-value orders. If you could take a minute to
explain the value of having your 106 print procurement
professionals hand-processing--hand-processing--nearly 60,000
low-dollar value jobs, which is roughly 563 jobs per
professional staff member. Would you address that, please?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Sure. You are talking about the numbers of
106, but if you look at that chart again, you will see that it
is separated by central versus regional. And you will see that
there are more employees in the regional office, and that is
because they are processing lots of small-dollar orders. But
there are fewer people in the central office because they, in
fact, are dealing with the larger orders, which, you are
correct, don't require as much hands-on. But it is the smaller
orders in the regions that require all of the people.
Mr. Walker. Thank you. I do not have time to get to my
third question, Chairman Harper, but I would like to submit a
question specifically on QFR #27, if I could.
The Chairman. Go ahead and ask that last question.
Mr. Walker. Okay. All right.
Basically, I would like to turn your attention to QFR #27.
The Committee requests the 2016 W-2 earning for all GPO
employees, ranked from highest to the lowest. Using 1,700
employees as the basis, I was surprised, as among several of
our staff members, Committee staff members, to learn that 34
percent--34 percent--of GPO's employees took home more than
$100,000, and 60 percent took home more than $80,000.
If you look at companies that do business with GPO in the
Metropolitan D.C. area, including both Maryland and Virginia,
since they are within the geographic employment region of GPO's
North Capitol Street printing factory, we could probably make a
reasonable comparison. So quickly, these three.
Have you compared GPO wages to these private sector
commercial printers, basically, these companies who currently
produce work for GPO? Have you had a chance to do that?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Have we had a chance to compare our wages
to what the----
Mr. Walker. To the private sector, those that do the same
kind of work there.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We have not, no.
Mr. Walker. Okay. Have you ever benchmarked GPO's
operational efficiencies to these GPO contractors?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I believe that we are extremely
operationally efficient because we are Congress' printer, and
most of the work that we are doing is for Congress. I believe
that to compare us to the private sector printers does not take
into account exactly how we manage our operations in support of
Congress.
Mr. Walker. And I appreciate that argument, Director Vance-
Cooks, but in the question, yes or no, have you had a chance to
benchmark the operational efficiencies of GPO to the GPO
contractors? Have you had a chance to do that?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We have not benchmarked the operational
efficiency against the private sectors, but we have benchmarked
the operational efficiency against prior years.
Mr. Walker. Thank you.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. And I can say to you that we have
definitely improved in prior years.
Mr. Walker. And I appreciate the transparency.
One final part of this. Does GPO perform any benchmarking
in its printing plant?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We do provide benchmarking in our plant.
In fact, we have a number of certifications related to that. We
are operationally efficient.
I would like to take the time, if I may, to talk about how
different we are from the private sector printers, because of
the fact that we were created by Congress to be Congress'
printer. That means that we have to make sure that we have
overnight capability, which the private sectors do not. It
means that we have to have a direct tie with the Congresspeople
or Congressmen, which they do not. And it has to also make sure
that we understand Congress' nature, their specific data
requirements. We provide a secure facility for them. We have a
lot of advantages for being the type of printer that we are,
including our COOP redundancy, as well as the data management.
The private sectors would not be able to take the data that
we provide for you and that we produce for you to create the
digital repository databases that we do for you, to ensure that
it is, in fact, available or the information is available to
the public. Private sector printers won't do that. That is what
we are paying for. Thank you.
Mr. Walker. Well, Director Vance-Cooks, I appreciate your
transparency.
And I appreciate the indulgence of the Chairman. I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Brady,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Brady. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Printer, I am intrigued by your suggestion of
providing grants to depository libraries as part of Title 44
reform, and I am happy to know that the Philadelphia Free
Library is a part of that and can be a part of that. Thank you.
Can you tell me more about it?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Tell you more about the idea of the grant
authority?
Mr. Brady. Yes, how it works and what it does for them.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We are very excited about this. This is a
brand new idea for us. And the reason we are thinking about and
want to project or want to propose the idea of a grant-making
authority is that with all of the visits that we have made to
the Federal depository libraries, we have identified the fact
that they have issues related to permanent public access to
content, to flexibility, to a number of services, and they are
trying very hard to deal with issues like digital scholarship
and digital disruption.
We believe that by having the ability to provide grants to
them to develop digital initiatives is going to benefit the
information dissemination to the public.
And we believe that with the cost savings that we have
incurred over time--because right now our appropriations is
$117 million, several years ago it was $140 million--we believe
that with those savings we can then turn around and grant funds
to the Federal depository libraries to create wonderful
initiatives that will improve our information dissemination.
It will, in fact, support the fact that we understand that
information dissemination is critical to the American public,
and we are excited about it and we hope to hear from the
libraries as well about it.
Mr. Brady. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes for
questions.
Director Vance-Cooks, I would like to direct your
attention, if I could, to QFR #6, in which you testified,
quote, ``The assertion that it has been a quarter of a century
since Title 44 has had a substantial review overlooks the fact
that Congress amended Title 44 in 2014 when it changed the name
of the agency to the Government Publishing Office.''
Help me understand how a name change, how that constitutes
a substantial revision to Title 44. And is it your testimony
that the name change authorized GPO to deviate from its core
mission?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. First of all, the name change for the GPO
from the Printing Office to the Publishing Office is major. It
is major because for a very long time all the things that
people thought about in terms of the GPO is print, they thought
that all we could do is print, when, in fact, we are a partner
with our stakeholders, including Congress, to make sure that we
can manage the digital transformation.
We have worked very hard with Congress, through our
Legislative Bulk Data Task Force, to make sure we have bulk
data available, to develop a digital repository with lots of
information, about 1.6 million titles. We have, in fact, become
a publisher. We even worked diligently and very hard to expand
our product and services portfolio. We can produce eBooks,
mobile apps. We can produce so many things that help our
partners, our stakeholders, to become, in fact, a publisher.
So we are a publisher. As far as we are concerned, that is
major. But the important part related to this question is
simply the fact that we believe that we should have, and as I
stated in my opening remarks, a complete review of Title 44. We
believe that all of those chapters need to be reviewed. And, to
use your word ``substantive,'' it is because we need to
separate the substantive from the minor changes.
And we believe that those minor changes, sir, sometimes are
a distraction. It is the substantive issues that keep us
directed towards our mission, and our mission to produce
publications and to publish for you are very significant.
The Chairman. And I certainly understand that and
appreciate your testimony. And certainly, your view, this was a
very substantive change.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. It was.
The Chairman. It would appear that a substantive change
should come through the Oversight Committee as well for future
things as opposed to being inserted in language in a conference
report in something. So that is one aspect of why we are here
today, is to make sure that we are playing it in a way that it
works. And so, in the future, we would expect that this would
be something that would come through the Oversight Committee,
not outside that. And so we would want to look at that as we go
forward in the future.
Now, one of the questions that I have, when you previously
testified before Congress, this was the quote, said, ``GPO is
transforming from a print-centric to a content-centric
publishing operation. By 2023, we expect the organization to be
fully rooted in a digital strategy, with a name change to the
Government Publishing Office to fully reflect our expanded
capabilities and to emphasize that we are not just an
organization that prints ink on paper.'' That is it.
So what I want to do is discuss the traditional role of a
publishing house and, by extension, you as a publisher. So if
you will just bear with me for a minute as I try to go through
some thoughts that I had.
Once a decision is made to publish a work, there are
obviously several next steps.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Right.
The Chairman. The author may be asked to improve the
quality of the work and the staff will edit the work.
Publishers often maintain a house style, and staff will
copyedit to ensure that the work matches the style and
grammatical requirements. Editors often choose or refine titles
and headlines. It may also involve editing structural changes
and requests for more information. Some publishers employ fact-
checkers.
So because time is limited here, I am just going to ask if
you would on these, if you could just reply yes or no on some
of these.
Does GPO edit for content work submitted by its customers?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We do not edit content.
The Chairman. All right.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We publish content. I know, yes or no.
Okay.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Does GPO copyedit every document submitted to GPO for
publication, either in GPO's factory or procured from the
private sector, to ensure that they conform to the style manual
as issued under the authority of section 105 of Title 44?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We do not edit. We publish.
The Chairman. Does GPO choose or refine titles and
headlines of every document submitted by its customers?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Do we? No.
The Chairman. Does GPO employ any fact-checkers?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We do not have anything to do with the
content. We simply publish. So the answer is no.
The Chairman. All right. Let me go on. I think I get your
answer there. Let's move on to the next phase of publishing
quickly.
The design process prepares the work for printing through
processes such as typesetting, dust jacket composition,
specification of paper quality, binding method, and casing. The
consideration of the reader experience often dictates many of
the design qualities.
Does GPO control the design process on every document
submitted for printing or publication?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Not for every product, but definitely for
some.
The Chairman. Okay. And an example of some? What would be
an example of some that you do?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We have a number of agencies that will
submit documents to us through our graphic design area or
whatever, and they would ask us to help design the content or
design the format.
The Chairman. My time is well expired, so I will now
recognize Mr. Raskin for 5 minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Can I just pass for one moment? I am preparing
a couple questions.
The Chairman. The gentleman will pass.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. And I will go to Mrs. Comstock for 5 minutes
for questions.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Turning your attention to QFR #15D discussing GPO's role as
a government landlord, you testified that upwards of 15 percent
of GPO's building space is leased, and you emphasized the
necessity of this non mission-critical business.
Could you just help us understand why making GPO a
significant landlord is a positive impact when we already have
GSA or the Architect of the Capitol, whose primary mission is
to be a landlord? How does GPO fit into that and how is it
different? What are the overlapping areas, if you could?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Sure. Thank you.
We started to lease space in 2004, and the reason that we
started to lease space is because we have a lot of it. We have
about 1.5 million square feet in buildings 1, 2 and 3, and
about 735,000 of that square feet is actually usable office
space.
We currently lease about 113,000 of it, and the reason that
we are doing that is because we actually have the space to
give. We lease that space at a market rate that is lower than
what the current market rate is. In fact, it is substantially
lower.
We have been very transparent about this leasing with the
Joint Committee on Printing, with the appropriation branches
over the years, and also it was mentioned in the NAPA study in
2013. In fact, in the Legislative branch language--it was a
couple years ago, maybe 2012--they specifically stated that
they encouraged the GPO to try to reduce their footprint by
leasing the space.
You see, many years ago we had about 8,000 employees.
Today, we only have 1,710. And because of that and we have the
space and because the agencies need space, they are looking for
it, we offer it to them. It is really considered shared
services. We get about $2.6 million a year from that, and we
use that revenue to offset the cost of administration for the
building.
Only 16 percent of our budget is actually appropriated. And
so that $2.6 million helps us to pay for lights, heat, things
of that nature.
So that is what we are doing with the leasing. I hope that
answers your question.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you.
Okay. Then on QFR #8, you testified that your visits to
FDLP libraries over the past few years illustrated that many
libraries are experiencing staff and budget shortages, and as a
result libraries want GPO to provide expertise in a number of
areas. And then you identified those areas, five areas.
Again, can you explain how that----
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Thank you so much for asking that
question, because this is one of the most exciting parts of
what we have been doing for the past few years.
We have three stakeholders. We have Congress, we have the
Federal Government agencies, and we have the Federal depository
libraries. We interact every day with Congress. We interact
every day with the government agencies. But up to this point,
we have not really interacted as much as I would like with the
Federal depository libraries.
In fact, when I looked at the number of visits that we have
made to the Federal depository libraries over the past 12
years, there were some years where we actually didn't visit
them at all. And I think, considering the fact that they are a
critical component, a critical stakeholder, it is important for
us to get out there and talk to them, because they certainly
cannot come here.
It was invaluable, because we learned so much. We learned
about their issues with flexibility. We learned about their
issues with permanent access to public content. We learned
about their concerns about having services that GPO should
provide, which we historically have not. For example, we are
very keen on providing training for them, and they like that.
We talked about web harvesting. We understand all the budgeting
issues that they are having and the space problems.
It is because of these visits that we have made, one-on-
one, talking to our constituents, talking to our stakeholders,
that we are able now to be in a position to try to help. And
that is why we have come up with the idea of a grant program.
We would love to have a grant-making authority to allow the
Federal depository libraries to bridge that digital divide, to
have digital scholarship issues. And this is why we have done
it. We are excited about it.
So thanks for asking that one.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair will recognize Mr. Raskin for 5 minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome to our distinguished witness.
One question I have is about the House Appropriations
Committee which asked you to develop a cost estimate for
converting the Statutes at Large all the way back to 1789 to
USLM language and then to post it online. And I am just
wondering whether you think you were, indeed, going to be able
to carry out this work and what the timetable for it might be.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We are definitely going to be able to
carry out the work. The timeline is probably sometime in 2018.
But I would like to use this time to talk about the fact that
that is another example of how we are helping our stakeholder,
in this case Congress, to bridge the digital divide, to ensure
digital transformation, to make sure that we provide our
constituents with access to the government information in
whatever format is available.
And so in terms of XML, in terms of USLM, our transparency
and openness advocates love this stuff, because they can take
the data, they can mash it up, and they can create other
products. And this is how we are helping to advance the whole
idea of keeping America informed. And, yes, we will be able to
handle that.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
The Appropriations Committee, Madam Director, also
recommends that the Library of Congress consult with you in
development of a system to make CRS nonconfidential reports
available to the public online. What are your views on doing
this, and how feasible and practical an idea is this?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. As I have stated many times, sir, we are a
publisher. We are ready to publish the content. And so if they
want us to do that, we can do it. And we are working on cost
estimates as we speak, to make sure that we can do it
efficiently and economically.
Mr. Raskin. Very good.
My final question is, you have got an annual financial
audit, as I understand it, by KPMG, which is overseen by the
Inspector General. So as long as you have been at the agency,
has the GPO ever gotten anything other than a clean audit and a
clean opinion on the state of its finances?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We have received a clean opinion every
year that I have been in charge of the GPO.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Thank you for your hard work, and thank
you for your testimony.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Raskin. The gentleman yields
back.
The Chair will now recognize Mr. Smith for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Director Vance-Cooks, for being here today
and for your service to our country. If you don't mind, I want
to get some clarification on some of the responses previous.
In QFR #34, the Committee sought a better understanding of
page rates, a charge for congressional work. And so I believe
you had testified that calculating page rates was the total
production cost divided by total number of printed pages by
product, equaling the product page rate. Is that accurate?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Yes.
Mr. Smith. Okay. So if you could help me understand this
formula, and yes-or-no responses would be most helpful. Do you
determine what equipment is used in the factory?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. It is in the production cost. You know,
the formula has production cost divided by the number of
printed pages. Within that area of production costs are
situations such as--I know I am not saying yes or no. I
understand. It takes into account all of the items that would
go into the production of that particular product, which would
be labor, materials, equipment, and so on and so forth.
Mr. Smith. So would there be other equipment that would not
be used?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Well, not all equipment is used for the
same type of product, sir, if that is what you are asking.
Mr. Smith. Sure. But is there an accounting for all the
equipment used within the factory?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. There is an accounting for all of the
equipment in the factory, in terms of overhead, and that would
be a small overhead amount. But there is an accounting for the
types of equipment that would be used for a particular product.
Think of it as the fact that they would look at all of the
production costs across the board and then for that particular
product and divide by the number of printed pages of that
product. And you are talking about a large volume of data, sir,
that goes into the calculation of that rate.
Mr. Smith. Okay. And then do you determine how much staff
you employ plus their rates of pay?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. When you say do I determine, I mean, that
is factored in, because it is labor, material, equipment and so
on and so forth, into the production cost. That is what is
factored in.
Mr. Smith. It would be at your discretion, though, what
inputs would be in there, correct?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. If you are asking whether or not the CFO
determines what goes in there, the answer is yes.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Do you determine the level of efficiency
of the staff and equipment?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. It is not that we determine the level of
efficiency. It is expected. It is assumed. It is an assumption
that is in the rate.
Mr. Smith. Okay. And congressional work is charged the rate
then that you determine?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Yes, it is. You are talking about the page
rate. And if I may--I know, again, I am not doing the yes or
no. I apologize.
Mr. Smith. I try to understand that as well.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We haven't changed that rate in years. And
the reason that we have not changed the rate or increased the
rate in years is because we have been so efficient, which
speaks to your earlier issue, that we haven't had a need to do
so. And I am very proud of that.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Now, given these various aspects of costs
and those obviously that you oversee, let me ask just a few
more questions about these areas under your control.
Do you conduct any time or motion studies to calculate
efficiency?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We don't necessarily do that as a part of
our normal business. We should. I totally agree.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Do you maintain accurate and detailed
equipment utilization logs for all equipment in the plant?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. That is a great question. And that refers
back to my statement earlier with another Congressman, where we
talked about the need for a cost accounting system, because I
recognize--and I have recognized that for a while--that we need
a much better cost accounting system. And it is listed as one
of the strategic priorities. I mentioned it in our last
hearing. And we are very close to having that, because that
needs to be done. Good question. Thanks.
Mr. Smith. I know that the Inspector General has offered
various information. I mean, it sounds like maybe the Inspector
General has identified the need for cost accounting, and you
are saying that there is room for improvement there.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Oh my goodness, yes, absolutely. I think
it is very important to recognize that when you are running a
business like we are or a government agency and we are charging
rates, it is important for us to make sure that our customers
understand what is in the rates. And, as I mentioned earlier,
we have developed page rates that have been in existence for
years.
But even the IG, even the plant operations employees and
the management team have identified the need for us to have a
much more robust cost accounting system. And once it is
installed, I will be happy to show it to you.
Mr. Smith. Well, I appreciate that.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. I know that you have a lot of tasks to complete
and a lot of information to process, and so I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I might defer to my second opportunity to
continue unless I have enough time.
The Chairman. If you have a followup, the chair will
recognize you to continue.
Mr. Smith. It is not really a followup, it is another
question. It is followup, in the same vein, but it might take a
little more time.
The Chairman. If you can sit tight for just a minute.
Thanks.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Loudermilk, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Director Vance-Cooks, thank you for being here today.
I want to see if you can help me understand a little bit
about the official time, its usage, and the way that GPO
reports the use of official time.
As you know, or I hope you know, that official time has a
specific statutory meaning under 5 U.S. Code 7131, which is
part of the Federal Government's collective bargaining system.
And if you could on these series of questions I have about
that, if you could answer as clearly and succinctly as
possible.
Does GPO have any employees who take official time to
conduct union business?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Yes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes. How does GPO record the usage of the
official time? Is it recorded as administrative leave?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. It is recorded as union official time. It
is on our webTA system. We have a webTA system.
Mr. Loudermilk. So you are saying it is not recorded as
administrative leave?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. It comes under administrative leave-union
time.
Mr. Loudermilk. So it is, I mean, just to make sure I
understand here.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Yes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Is it reported as administrative leave or
is it not?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. It is recorded as union time.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. You are not answering my question.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I was right. It is recorded as official
time.
Mr. Loudermilk. So you are saying you do not record it as
administrative leave?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. That is correct.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. So, for the record, you are saying
you do not record it as administrative. If you need to ask
somebody, I understand that.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. No, I did. Yes, I did.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. So it is not recorded as
administrative leave?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. That is correct.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Well, I would like to call your
attention to QFR #28, in which you testified on the
administrative leave usage by individual employees who have
used more than 1 month of administrative leave during each year
from 2007 to present.
In your testimony for the record it appears, which I have
here, that in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2013 there are several
employees who took more than 1 month of official business
reported as administrative leave.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Did it say that it was official business,
or did it say that it was reported as official time?
Mr. Loudermilk. These are reported as----
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I think it said administrative leave.
Mr. Loudermilk. Let's see. In 2008, official business
reported as administrative leave.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I can't comment on 2008. I became the head
of the agency in 2012. And I do know that we have worked very
hard to limit official time. I do know that around 2010--no,
2011 or 2012, we have a brand new system.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. And that brand new webTA system allows us
to put the hours in as official time.
I can also tell you that we worked very hard to reduce the
amount of official time, as the union people sitting behind me
will testify to.
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, if you will, in 2013, it is also a
report of official business reported as administrative leave.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Then that would be around the time that we
had the new system put in. But we do have a system to record
the official time correctly, if you are talking about official
time in reference to the unions.
In fact, let me just talk a little bit about that, if I
may, or do I have time?
Mr. Loudermilk. Sure.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Sure. The official time for the unions, we
used to have 100 percent official time for some of our union
representatives, and we realized that that was not necessary
anymore because we don't have as many employees as we used to.
As I mentioned earlier, we used to have about 8,000 employees,
where in some cases, I presume, 100 percent official time was
necessary. But right now, we have very--in fact, we completely
eliminated 100 percent official time.
Mr. Loudermilk. Can you explain, so I can understand and
the Members of the Committee understand, when someone uses
time, official time, for union business, how specifically do
you record that and report that?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Sure. My understanding--and I will go back
and double-check--is that when they record official time, it is
recorded in our webTA as official time. And in order for them
to receive official time, Congressman, they must ask their
supervisor for it. They cannot simply take it.
And in addition to that, they must go through our Labor
Relations Department to make sure that it is truly official
time. You cannot simply just take the official time and record
it. It has to go through a review process.
Mr. Loudermilk. So you are saying that even though it has
been done in the past--and this may answer why there are
discrepancies in the reporting from GPO, which is greatly
concerning to me, because in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2013, there
are several employees that took official time to conduct--or
official time reported as administrative leave. So I am
assuming that they did conduct union business during that time.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. And, sir, as I have said before, I really
can't explain what happened in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Well, then 2011, 2012, 2014, with
2013 being skipped, 2015 and 2016, there is no report of that
being.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Right.
Mr. Loudermilk. So that may account for that discrepancy.
I see I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I can follow up with
this or----
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I will be happy to follow up with you on
that, okay. Thank you.
Mr. Loudermilk. I may defer to the second round of
questioning so I can finish with this.
The Chairman. That will be fine. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the Vice Chairman of the
Committee, Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman.
And thank you, Director Vance-Cooks, for being here today.
This is your third appearance before the Committee this year,
and in each appearance your testimony has included prepared
remarks that reference constant dollar valuation as a benchmark
for congressional printing expenses.
Would it be accurate to conclude that you believe using the
constant dollar calculation is a fair way to benchmark costs on
a year-over-year basis, yes or no?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Yes.
Mr. Davis. Okay. I agree with you. A constant dollar
calculation considers inflation to determine what something
should cost years before or in many cases years later.
Director Vance-Cooks, you often benchmark against Fiscal
Year 1980, because that is when GPO introduced electronic
information technologies into the printing plant. So using your
preferred benchmarking formula and your preferred benchmarking
date, I researched what GPO charged Congress to produce the
printed Congressional Record. Do you know what the page rate
charged to Congress for the printed Congressional Record was in
Fiscal Year 1980?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I do not.
Mr. Davis. I didn't know either, but the House Library
found GPO's budget submission in the serial set, and the page
rate GPO charged Congress was $107.20. And using your preferred
constant dollar valuation formula, a page of the Congressional
Record printed using Fiscal Year 1980 prices as that benchmark
should cost $337.52 today.
Director Vance-Cooks, can you tell me what GPO charges
Congress today for a page of the printed Congressional Record?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. My CFO is behind me. May I ask him, or I
can get it for you for the record, or do you have it?
Mr. Davis. I have got it.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Okay. Go ahead.
Mr. Davis. See if your CFO actually agrees with me. It is
$929, nearly three times the benchmark.
Is that correct, Mr. CFO, Ms. CFO?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. He is back here.
Mr. Davis. That is correct. So it is $929.
The introduction of technology over the past 37 years has
significantly reduced the cost of printing in the private
sector, but not at GPO. Even accounting for inflation, the cost
of printing in your plant has increased threefold when it comes
to us, when it comes to Congress, and others.
So explain this to me. It doesn't make sense.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Okay. I think the best way to explain it
is in terms of the fact that the page rate reflects what it
takes to produce the Congressional Record. And I think the
other way to look at it is in terms of what is the
appropriation that we request. You see, right now we are only
requesting an appropriation from Congress of about $79 million.
This is significantly less than what we requested back in 1980,
in terms of constant dollars.
So what I am looking at is, what are we asking you for
appropriations? You are looking at the page rate, I understand,
but what is the total value of what we are asking? And the
total value of what we are asking in comparison to 1980, in
constant dollar terms, is 70 percent less than what we asked at
that time. That is significant.
Mr. Davis. But also using constant dollars, you are
charging Congress per page three times as much as you would
when taking into account the constant dollar cost today versus
Fiscal Year 1980. My point is, numbers add up, and we want to
make sure that we are getting the best deal for us.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Sure.
Mr. Davis. And regardless of appropriations requests. We
are not the Appropriations Committee. I think that is something
we can take up with them. Obviously, we all have our concerns
about the appropriations process and whether it works and
whether it is not, and frankly, we can address that.
But in this case, when you come in front of our Committee
and use terms like constant dollar, and then we do the
calculations and it is three times as much as what it should
be, I have got a problem with that as a Member of this
Committee, Director, and I think it needs to be taken seriously
and addressed by the GPO in the future.
And one other question. Help me understand the GPO's
Revolving Fund, because you mentioned appropriations. GPO's
activities are financed through the Business Operations
Revolving Fund, which is established in section 309 of Title 44
U.S.C. and reauthorized annually.
When Congress established the Revolving Fund in 1953 with
$1 million of investment capital, it was expected the GPO
Director, through the authority to set prices, would
continuously provide working capital for the GPO. The GPO is
expected to capitalize at fair and reasonable values the
current inventories, plant and building--this is a word I have
had trouble typing and saying--appurtenances, except building
structure and land and other assets of the Government
Publishing Office.
Further, the Revolving Loan Fund shall be reimbursed for
the cost of all services that include charges for overhead and
related expenses, including the depreciation of these assets.
Is this correct, yes or no?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Yes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Director, I now draw your attention to QFR #57, in which
this Committee requested that you update the 2013 NAPA report
with actual numbers for Fiscal Year 2014 and Fiscal Year 2016
and revised projections for Fiscal Year 2017 through Fiscal
Year 2020.
And at the bottom, under agency profit-loss, you have
recorded the following actual cash value available for
investment: Fiscal Year 2014, $33.399 million; Fiscal Year
2015, $35.375 million; Fiscal Year 2016, $37.132 million.
And you forecast for Fiscal Year 2017, $60.115 million;
Fiscal Year 2018, $61.762 million; Fiscal Year 2019 it begins
to go down, $52.341 million; and in Fiscal Year 2020, it goes
down substantially to $32.222 million.
In GPO's Fiscal Year 2018 budget you request an injection
of $8.54 million for GPO's Revolving Fund, which you project
will already have $61.762 million available for investment.
Director, when GPO was faced with financial distress over
the years it might have made sense for Congress to inject some
working capital into the Revolving Fund. Given these
astonishingly high amounts of cash available for investment,
help me understand why Congress should continue to give scarce
resources to the GPO, because by the numbers presented, it
doesn't appear that you need extra working capital. Am I
missing something?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Actually, what you are talking about is
the fact that we have cash that is obligated for capital
investments for the digital transformation to support Congress.
It is our cash that is used for just about everything. And if
you would like, I can go ahead for the record and submit all
the different parts that are obligated.
[The information follows:]
******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********
Mr. Davis. I would love to see that. But with the cash
infusion, will the cost, the constant dollar cost per page for
Congress go down?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. It is our hope and it is our intent that
as we move towards more and more of a digital operation, in
concert with Congress as a stakeholder, that eventually the
cost will go down, because the whole idea is that when you move
to digital there should be less cost.
But what we are finding is that the startup of getting into
a digital environment is expensive. Congressman Harper knows
that I had to come to him several years ago and get permission
to buy a ZMR press, $7 million.
We are buying digital equipment. We are implementing
digital processes. And a lot of those items, a lot of that
cash, is obligated to specific projects that help us to help
you to become more digital.
But I certainly understand your point about making sure
that the page rates reflect----
Mr. Davis. Director, I appreciate your comments and your
answering our questions. Obviously, this is a concern for us in
this Committee. We too agree and we see in our own office
budgets that going to more of a digital process lowers our
cost.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Sure.
Mr. Davis. But, frankly, we don't have the ability then to
upcharge our clients to make up those costs. You know, I
started working for the U.S. House as a staffer in 1997, 20
years ago. It was the first internet access I had. The cost of
printing and publishing back then was substantially higher to
our budgets.
Now, we are not seeing that reduction in our cost,
Congress, to the GPO that we use, because our rates are
continuing to go up. That is a concern for me and a concern for
the taxpayers that I represent. And I would hope that as we
have future hearings, we can get those concerns addressed.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
How is that printer working, by the way, Director Vance-
Cooks?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. It is wonderful.
The Chairman. Good.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. And we are just so pleased with it. And it
has allowed us to reduce our cost, though you might disagree,
but it has also allowed us to reduce the amount of waste that
we normally would incur with other machines. Thank you so much
for that.
The Chairman. I just have a couple of followup questions
based on what we have heard. And I will give the opportunity to
other members to follow up as well.
Earlier, Mr. Walker asked you whether GPO practiced
accurate and detailed accounting, and I recall your answer
being that we should be doing that. And so, you know, that is a
big difference from, say, a yes.
So the question is, can you explain that so I better
understand what GPO is doing?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Sure. He was referring to a cost
accounting. We have a legacy system for cost accounting. I am
going to be very blunt about that. And because it is a legacy
system, we have recognized the need to improve. We need a brand
new system.
The Chairman. So what kind of timeframe are you on for that
new system, and what is that new system?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. That new system, I can talk to you offline
about the name of the vendor that we have contracted with.
The Chairman. Sure.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. But we are looking at about 18 months to 2
years before it will be put in place, because we have to make
sure that we are developing the correct specifications. It is a
very complex project, but it is one which I believe should be
at the top, a strategic priority.
The Chairman. Are you satisfied, as the Director, that that
is the direction you need to go that will address those
concerns you have?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Absolutely. Absolutely. I believe very
much that the questions related to how much it costs to produce
something is appropriate. And it is important for me to be able
to give you real-time data. But I have to admit that our
systems are legacy systems and we need to change it. Again,
that is part of the cash.
The Chairman. And, of course, so many of our questions are
necessary because of the QFRs, as we try to dig down and
understand those. And so it takes a while to digest over a
thousand pages of information. We just want to be accurate and
give you a chance to clarify where we need.
And so one question I had was QFR #56A, which asked about
GPO's losses of nearly $1.5 million and just over $3.2 million
of revenue in GPO's Publications and Information Sales Business
Unit. You testified in your plans for the Business Unit going
forward, quote, ``Cut costs by greatly reducing mandated
inventory stock levels.''
Can you just very briefly help me understand what these
mandated inventory stock levels are, and who makes that
mandate?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Sure. I love this question, because the
P&IS area is one that is near and dear to my heart, because I
used to manage it.
Publications and Information Sales, the best way to think
about this department is think of Barnes & Noble. It is sort of
like a Barnes & Noble. It is responsible for selling the
products that we produce on behalf of the Federal agencies and
Congress. That is what it is supposed to do.
Once upon a time, sir, it generated about $80 million, and
right now it is in a loss, it is in a tailspin. But it is a
mandated department, and I think it is section 1902. We are
required to do this. And there are a number of factors that are
contributing to the loss, including mandated inventory. These
would be publications that have been determined that we must
keep and we have to keep a certain level. But as you know, from
a financial standpoint, that is an expense to our bottom line.
The Chairman. So if--and I will let you finish--but if, in
fact, they are mandated, how do you reduce the stock levels?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Well, that is the point, we can't. And
that is what I am trying to say. We really need to reduce those
mandated inventories, especially given the fact that no one is
buying them. They are just sitting on the balance sheet and it
is costing us.
The Chairman. Just so you recognize our intent, our intent
is to work with you going forward as we look at how we can
improve on Title 44, okay? And so we are going to be--and you
probably will get tired of me--but we will want to sit down and
visit, make sure we are going in the right direction, we are
all on the same page.
Because I know that the goal here is for everybody to make
GPO everything that we all know it can be and to work with you
in that process. And if there is an issue, we want you to let
us know, okay?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Thank you.
The Chairman. And so at this time, I will recognize Ranking
Member Mr. Brady if he has any followup questions in response
to that.
Mr. Brady. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You have been digitizing the historical issues of the
Congressional Record?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Yes.
Mr. Brady. How is that project going?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. It is great. It is going very, very well.
We have digitized all the way back to the 1950s. We just
released that. And in the first week in August we will release
the 1940s.
Mr. Brady. What makes it historic?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. What makes it historic?
Mr. Brady. The age of it?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brady. When I make a 1-minute tomorrow, it won't be
historic?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I am sorry, what did you say?
Mr. Brady. When I do a 1-minute tomorrow, it won't be
historic?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We are so proud of that initiative,
because our whole intent is to make sure that the information
is available to the public. And the Congressional Record is one
of the key documents in the government. And to be able to
digitize it and to have it available for online researchers,
for children in schools, is just phenomenal. And so much has
happened during those years, the fifties and the forties. So we
are pretty excited about it.
Don't forget, we are also digitizing the Federal Register
as well.
Mr. Brady. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I will now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
Smith, for any followup questions that you may have.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Thanks again for your time.
Director Vance-Cooks, QFR #29 and #30, I believe you said
that multiple studies have shown that it is more cost-effective
for agencies and the taxpayer to contract out printing that is
deemed to be procurable, for example, printing not immediately
required for agency use or otherwise not sensitive or
classified, than it is to produce in agency printing plants. Is
that accurate?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Yes.
Mr. Smith. Okay. You describe many reasons why
congressional printing should not be procured from the private
sector, including, quote, ``being unable to identify the best
procurement vehicle that could be used for each order from the
private sector.''
So if you could help me understand, it seems that on the
one hand there is a suggestion that every Federal agency should
be using GPO's expertise to procure their printing from the
private sector; yet, on the other hand then, the same GPO
printing procurement experts are unable to identify the best
procurement vehicle for any congressional work.
Can you elaborate on that?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Sure. I would like to address it in two
ways. The first is the purpose of the congressional printing
and the purpose of GPO as the printer for congressional
publications, and then we will talk a little bit about the
different products that are available, okay?
In terms of GPO, GPO is the congressional printer. We are
the printer for Congress. We were set up in such a way to
support Congress, because Congress has a unique schedule. You
need overnight capability. You need secure facilities. You need
to make sure, or we need to make sure for you, that the data
that we produce is managed properly, in concert with the other
government agencies that use the data.
We also need to make sure that the data that we produce
goes into our digital repository, which in this case is called
FDsys/govinfo. That information has about 1.6 million titles,
which we grow every day.
All of that information, all of those services that we
provide are critical to Congress. So in order for us to think
about procuring some of the products for Congress, you are
going to lose all of those benefits, not to mention the cost as
well.
The second part has to do with the different products. You
listed the SPA, the term contract, GPOExpress, and so on and so
forth. If you really want us to go in and take a look at which
of those procurement vehicles would be worthwhile, we can do
that, but it takes away from the fact that we are the printer
for Congress and we are designed specifically to handle all of
the unique requirements of Congress.
But the SPA, for example, only goes up to $10,000. A term
contract requires something that is of a repetitive nature, and
some of those items might work, but then you would have to deal
with which vendor are you going to use.
Our job as your printer is to make sure that we are making
everything easier for you. And to go back to what the
Congressman said, we have to make sure that it is cost
appropriate and cost-effective. So that is my answer.
Mr. Smith. So some of these products that are not time-
sensitive or classified or even sensitive, is there an avenue
for giving the best cost on this?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Yes. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, we
could talk to the ordering entity and ask, for example, if you
want to have another vendor produce your envelopes, for
example, or to produce something else. We could do that. I just
want to make sure that everyone is aware of the different
vehicles and what they are supposed to be for.
And I also want to stress over and over again the wonderful
work that we are doing to support Congress and the unique
requirements of Congress. I just don't want us to lose sight of
the fact that we are here to be the printer for Congress and
that the procurement work is for the government executive
agencies. That is kind of what I am trying to explain. I hope I
am----
Mr. Smith. Well, I appreciate that.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Okay.
Mr. Smith. QFR #36, the Committee requested information
about the page rate for congressional hearings. And so the May
17 House Admin hearing--obviously, you testified--has a
transcript that is approximately 39 pages long. The QFR request
is approximately 13 pages. Your prepared statement is
approximately 11 pages. Your responses to the QFR request run
over 1,100 pages.
How much will GPO charge to compile--about how much would
you say that GPO will charge to compile and print the record of
this important oversight hearing?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I have no idea, but I can get back to you.
It is a good question.
[The information follows:]
******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********
Mr. Smith. Okay. Obviously, we want to be good stewards of
taxpayer dollars. I think you do too as well. So I appreciate
that.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Guess what, let's talk about that for just
1 minute. Because we were sensitive about how many pages, we
sent this electronically, okay? All right. And it was 10 files
long, okay? Ten separate files. Just a little plug for digital.
Okay.
Mr. Smith. All right. Thank you very much.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. You are welcome.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize Mr. Raskin for any followup
questions he may have.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you.
I just wanted to follow up on the line of questioning that
Mr. Loudermilk had begun about the official time thing. I
wasn't aware that this was an issue. But if I understand your
responses correctly, the official time was being designated as
administrative leave before you got there and then it changed
after you arrived?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. It sounds like it, and I am going to
double-check that. I mean, I have been at the GPO since 2004,
but I became in charge of it in 2012.
I do know that official time was, in fact, an issue for us
and we worked very closely with the unions to make sure that we
could record it correctly, that they would work with the Labor
Relations Department to make sure that it was requested
appropriately. And we did reduce 100 percent official time.
Mr. Raskin. Got you. It sound like you have instituted a
set of procedural steps that have to be met before official
time----
Ms. Vance-Cooks. That is right.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Is actually taken by the union.
And are you satisfied that it is working well in the workplace
now?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I am very satisfied. I really appreciate
working with the unions. As I mentioned earlier, they are
behind me.
We could not have done as much as we have done in terms of
digital transformation without them. They have worked very
closely with us, and they understand the importance of making
sure that we move the GPO forward. So I don't have any issues
with them, and they don't have any issues with what we are
accomplishing either. Great partners.
Mr. Raskin. Terrific. Thank you for your service and your
hard work.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the Vice Chairman of the
Committee, Mr. Davis, for any followup questions he may have.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you again for answering the questions. You
mentioned the appropriations process before. Correct me if I am
wrong, your appropriation that is appropriated to the GPO is
kind of drawn down upon based upon the number of requests that
you get from Congress or other officials, correct?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. That is correct.
Mr. Davis. Have those appropriations been drawn down then
less over the last few years because Congress is making less
requests of the GPO?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. The appropriations, it is not so much they
are drawing down less, it is just that we can only access the
revenue when we complete the job.
Mr. Davis. Right. Are there less requests coming from
Congress----
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, yes.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. On an annual basis? So
substantially less, 20 percent, 30 percent?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I can provide the data for you.
[The information follows:]
********COMMITTEE INSERT********
Ms. Vance-Cooks. And it is very interesting, though,
because it goes according to the year, in other words, whether
it is an election year or things of that nature.
Mr. Davis. When new Members come in, it is a little higher
because we all need those franked envelopes, right? It is kind
of cool to see the signature on there.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I will get back to you on that.
Mr. Davis. All right. Thank you.
But that is where you see the ups and downs? Overall, you
saw less of a need of continuing to buy certain materials over
the years. Therefore, you have drawn down less. Therefore, your
appropriation is less.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. That would be some of it, yes. Then, of
course, we use the CP&B funds for other things. For example, we
use it for your COOP exercises, because you gave us permission
to do so. We are using it for some of your special projects,
like the Hearing Modernization project. You gave us permission
to use that. And it is very important that we work closely with
you to make sure that those dollars are used appropriately.
Mr. Davis. Okay. I mean, those are very good programs to be
able to take those dollars and contribute them to, and thank
you for doing that.
I have got a question, though, about the Federal Depository
Library Program. In your last hearing, we actually discussed
that. And I would like to get some clarification on just a few
of your responses.
In QFR #8 regarding what you learned during the FDLP
library visits, you testified, quote, ``Agencies do not submit
or are not aware that they must submit documents to GPO for
dissemination to depository libraries, and this is a concern
for many libraries because the results lead to incomplete
library collections and potential loss of access to government
information,'' end quote.
Yet in QFR #6, you testified, quote, ``GPO's Superintendent
of Documents does not receive a list of all publications that
are obtained from other sources than GPO. In practical terms,
handling lists from thousands of agencies would be a
substantial processing burden,'' end quote.
Director, please help me understand and reconcile your two
responses. The substantial processing burden you refer to seems
like a core function of what SuDocs needs to be doing to ensure
that all in-scope documents, whether it is electronic or
tangible, make it to the FDLP.
How do you propose to ensure that the depository libraries
receive this information if it is possibly, according to your
quote, maybe a burden for the GPO?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. That is a really good question.
One of the issues that we identified with the visits to the
libraries is the fact that most of the information that they
are asking for is digital, okay, and it is digital through our
CGP. So, in other words, we just give them the titles and they
have access to it.
So that reference to the list, that is an outdated type of
methodology, going back to what Chairman Harper said earlier
about making sure that we look at parts of Title 44 that make
sense and no longer need to be in Title 44, and that is one of
them. The lists are just not practical because no one looks at
lists anymore. It is all primarily digital.
So I am trying to reconcile that. Perhaps we should not
have written burdensome, but I am just letting you know that it
is primarily digital.
Mr. Davis. I look forward to working with you and the
Chairman of this Committee to address the issues in Title 44.
But also one last question is, I have some concern that
maybe the agencies don't know what information could even be
sent in the preferred format, you say electronically, to the
FDLPs. How do you propose making sure that our agencies know
that they can get this information to the FDLPs?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We are doing a lot of outreach, okay? We
have a Doc Discovery Program. We reach out to agencies. We do a
lot of web harvesting. We have a lot of initiatives to pull
that data and that information into our CGP. Likewise, we do a
lot of outreach to make sure that the agencies know this
information is available. We send out circular letters. We
reach out directly to the agencies. It just involves a lot.
And when we talk about Title 44 reform, let's make sure we
talk about whether or not we have the authority to enforce
those kinds of things, because that part is kind of missing,
because we now have moved towards digital.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. Director, I appreciate you being
here, your comments, and thanks for your responses.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yield back.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Loudermilk, for any followup questions he may have for 5
minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I do have more questions regarding the apparent
inconsistencies over time of reporting official time and union
activities. And I appreciate Mr. Raskin also heading in that
direction.
Especially when you look at the OPM report of the number of
per-employee bargaining unit hours is significantly higher in
the OPM of 4.23 than the average of the other 62 agencies
reported, which is only 2.88 hours. Apparently, we spent in
taxpayer dollars $291,000, almost $300,000 of salary and
benefits on union activities.
But, because we need to move on because of time and I know
your time is valuable too, Mr. Chairman, I will submit those
questions for the record, and you can respond appropriately.
[The information follows:]
******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********
Mr. Loudermilk. That way I can also move on to another
area, kind of follow up on what my colleague Mr. Davis was
asking regarding the Federal Deposit Library Program. And I
asked you about this in a previous hearing. And this is in
response to QFR #8 regarding some of the things you learned as
you visited--and we appreciate you doing that--the FDLP
libraries, as I know that you are required to do.
And in there you quoted, ``Agencies do not submit or are
not aware that they must submit documents to GPO for
dissemination to deposit libraries.'' And as we have discussed,
this leaves some very open areas. I mean, there are things that
are unreported and not made in publication, and we understand
that is a concern, and it leads basically to incomplete library
collections.
And I am sure you are familiar with this, the U.S.
Government Manual. Isn't that amazing how thick? I know you are
doing this digitally now, but just to think that this is
basically the phone book for the Federal Government, just how
massive this is. And this is just for the key agencies and
executives and such in the Federal Government.
So this is the 2013 edition. Now, did you become CEO in
2012 or 2013?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. 2012.
Mr. Loudermilk. It was 2012.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I was acting, yes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. And so I know this was the year after
you became CEO then. And as I said, it is electronic, which we
appreciate very much, and so were a lot of trees thankful that
we are doing that now.
There are 440 agencies listed in the Code of Federal
Regulations. How do we contact these agencies that are not
responding and giving you the information that is needed to put
in these publications? How are you currently contacting them to
let them know that their documents are incomplete?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. We have what is called an outreach effort.
It is through our Discovery Program. It is through circular
letters. We actually have staff dedicated to calling the
agencies to talk to them. We actually have a web harvesting
program whereby we just kind of crawl through the websites, see
what kind of information is out there.
We also work with a number of different Committees. We work
with the agencies through the Interagency Council, which
reports in to the GPO. We do everything we can to communicate,
to be proactive, to explain it. But we don't have enforcement
mechanism.
Mr. Loudermilk. Who is ultimately responsible at these
agencies to make sure that you get the information?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Well, according to Title 44, we are
responsible for making sure that we get it. But a lot of the
information is now digital, as you just mentioned. In fact, a
lot of the information is actually born digital on the
websites. So because of that, that is why we have a web
harvesting program to crawl through and find it.
Mr. Loudermilk. But at the agencies, I mean, you can't go
in and just knock down their door and get their data, right?
Somebody at that agency is ultimately responsible to respond to
you and give you the information you are lacking?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Right.
Mr. Loudermilk. Who is that?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. The printing officers. We have printing
officers whom we deal with in terms of the government agencies
that procure printing from us.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. So you have a printing officer. Who
do they report to generally?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. It just depends.
Mr. Loudermilk. Is it usually an executive?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. It could be. Sometimes it would be very,
very low. They would report to someone else, who would report
to someone else.
Mr. Loudermilk. Who could make this happen?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I think that a number of us can make this
happen. We need and we are trying very hard to communicate to
everyone that this is a feature that is available.
See, at some point people are thinking of this as a burden.
It is not a burden. What we try to do is to explain to the
agencies the benefit of having that information in the FDLP,
because once it is in the FDLP, then that information is
available to everyone, and it would seem to us that agencies
would want their information to be disseminated.
Mr. Loudermilk. Absolutely. Have you communicated this
directly to the executives?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. It is through a circular letter, sir, we
do that through.
Mr. Loudermilk. How many have you met with personally?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Have I met with them personally?
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes, to explain this to execs. Because I
would think that the department head of these agencies, whoever
that is, could get this done. I mean, we are talking about
information that the American people have a right to know.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I think you are right.
Mr. Loudermilk. And I agree.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I agree.
Mr. Loudermilk. How many have you met with personally to
express the problem that you are having?
Ms. Vance-Cooks. I have not met with many personally to
talk about FDLP as a specific issue. We have what is called the
Interagency Council. They meet once a quarter. These are the
high-level printing officers who come to us. And we talk about
a number of issues, including that.
What I generally do is send out circular letters. They
would go out. But I think it is a great idea.
Mr. Loudermilk. I think, as a CEO, when I had a business,
if I wanted to get something done with another business, I
picked up the phone and I called. If I am working with another
office here in Congress and from staff to staff we are not
getting anything done, I pick up the phone and I call the
Member. I would encourage you to take that leadership role in
that.
And I see I have got the red light on me. So, Mr. Chairman,
I yield back.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Thank you so much. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Again, Director Vance-Cooks, we thank you for your time,
your dedication to your job, and we do look forward to working
with you in the months and years ahead. And thank you for your
hard work.
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
to submit to the chair additional written questions for the
witness, which we will forward and ask the witness to respond
as promptly as she can so that her answers may be made a part
of the record.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
Ms. Vance-Cooks. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]