Panel begins public debate over printing office future

The heads of the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Printing Office clashed Wednesday over the Bush administration's plan to eliminate a rule that forces federal agencies to go through the printing office for printing services. Appearing before the congressional Joint Committee on Printing, OMB Director Mitch Daniels said ending the GPO "monopoly" would boost quality, improve service to federal agencies and reduce prices. Agencies could keep giving their business to GPO or directly contract for printing services under the administration's plan. "Competition always and everywhere benefits the customer," Daniels said. "No department will be compelled to change anything they're doing now, just freed to do so." But Public Printer Michael DiMario, head of the printing office, said federal agencies couldn't find better deals on their own. He said ending the requirement to use the printing office could cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars more a year. The government already spends more than $1 billion a year on printing. OMB officials estimate that the government would save $50 million to $70 million a year by ending the GPO requirement. "Their numbers are pure fiction," DiMario said. The clash between the two offices was rekindled on May 3, when Daniels issued a memorandum directing the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council to take the GPO requirement out of the rule book. DiMario said that OMB did not first consult with GPO officials. The Federal Acquisition Regulation Council will soon issue a recommendation from acquisition officials that would eliminate the GPO rule (FAR Subpart 8.8). The procurement rule is based on a law that orders agencies to use GPO. Citing a Justice Department opinion, Daniels said the executive branch does not believe that Congress can force agencies to use GPO. GPO is part of the legislative branch. The office was established in 1860 to improve the efficiency of government printing. Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing, began the Wednesday hearing by recounting numerous past executive branch attempts to rid itself of the GPO requirement. The most recent attempt was in 1994, when Vice President Al Gore's reinventing government campaign recommended a change. While Daniels downplayed the inter-branch conflict, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the Bush administration should not ignore a federal law. Hoyer said the appropriate way to change the GPO policy would be through the courts or by a change in statute. "A mere administrative regulation cannot overturn statute," Hoyer said. Daniels said OMB has received numerous complaints from federal officials about GPO's services. In a July 10 letter submitted to the joint committee, Army Corps of Engineers official John Trout of Omaha, Neb., told Daniels that the Corps' Omaha district has "recurring quality and deadline problems with printing jobs contracted by the Government Printing Office. "When quality or timeliness problems arise in our print jobs with GPO, we do not have sufficient flexibility to achieve a reasonable and timely solution," Trout wrote. DiMario said such anecdotes belie most agencies' satisfaction with GPO, pointing to a 1998 audit that found "universal support" in the executive branch for GPO's services. Despite GPO and Hoyer's concerns, the Bush administration is poised to change the regulation following the publishing of the proposed rule change and a 60-day comment period. A spokeswoman for Hoyer said he hasn't planned any specific actions to counter the Bush administration's effort. GPO officials estimate that 1,500 employees could lose their jobs if all executive branch printing services were pulled from the agency.