F e d e r a l D e p o s i t o r y L i b r a r y P r o g r a m | ||
| ||
Home About the FDLP Depository Management Electronic Collection Locator Tools & Services Processing Tools Publications Q & A |
askLPS · Calendar · Contacts · Library Directory · Site Index · Site Search |
|
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTESNewsletter of the Federal Depository Library Program[ Back Issues ]
August 15, 1996 IssueGPO's Suite of Pathway Services Is Now Available. . . . . . . . . . . 1 Networking the NTDB CD-ROM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Mark Your Calendars!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 You Can Help Plan the 1997 Federal Depository Conference. . . . . . . 4 Duncan Aldrich Joins Electronic Transition Staff. . . . . . . . . . . 5 LPS Update, Remarks Before AALL by Greta Boeringer. . . . . . . . . . 5 Readers Exchange: New Mexico Takes a Leap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Public Printer Statement: Senate Committee on Rules and Administration . . . . 13
The Library Programs Service (LPS) at GPO is now providing a number of Pathway Services on the Internet via our GPO Access World Wide Web site at the following URL: http:/ /www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs /aces/aces760.html Pathway Services are designed to provide a variety of useful "pathways" to anyone who uses Government information, and who until now may have felt they were lost in the wilderness of the Information Superhighway without a friendly native guide! Some of our services will be familiar guides, only with a new look and added functionality due to their computerization; some are completely new maps to a wider variety of Government services and information than ever before, only made possible by the online environment. A short description of each Pathway service's focus and intended audience follows: Browse Topics classifies Government and military Internet sites under approximately 170 subjects, based on the subject terms used in GPO's Subject Bibliographies. Also, a brief annotation will describe the general contents of each site. Browse Topics will be useful for anyone who may want an overall knowledge of what is available on the Internet from the Federal Government on one topic, or who may simply want guidance in identifying possible topics and sites for more in-depth research. Browse Pathway GILS provides an alphabetical directory of Government Information Locator Service records prepared by LPS which describe the information policies and provisions of Cabinet-level and other major Federal agencies. The services include hotlinks to agency home pages and agency-specific information locators. Browse Pathway GILS will be useful for anyone who may want to locate agency-specific information sources, or who may be interested in contacting an agency's information specialists. Browse Titles lists electronic Government information products available on Federal Government servers, arranged alphabetically by agency. (Titles will also have a corresponding SuDocs class number and item number, if they have been assigned). Listed are products which may have previously been in the FDLP, or new titles which are only available on the Internet. Browse Titles will be useful for anyone who may want an overview of Government information products available electronically, or who may be looking for a specific online title. Search the Web contains a simple search form which will enable users to query a database of information collected on a regular basis from official Government sites. Be it .gov, .mil, or even part of a cooperative agreement between the Government and an outside partner, the Pathway Indexer will have already searched and indexed the information for you. All you have to do is type in search terms and you receive a list of results ranked by relevance, complete with a list of lines containing the search term(s) and a hotlink to the exact page you need. Search the Web will be useful for anyone who may want to do a very specific search on Government information. Pathway Indexer does what search engines like Yahoo! and AltaVista do, but we have limited it to index selected Federal Internet sites. Search MoCat links you directly to the online Monthly Catalog search page. MoCat has always been a primary bibliographic tool for identifying Government information products and keeping track of the great range of information available in the FDLP, and naturally now it's followed them right out onto the Internet! The online version of the MoCat offers full-text and fielded searches of GPO cataloging records from 1994 onwards; it provides fielded displays of MARC cataloging, identifies any depository libraries which can provide access to the product, and it even hotlinks the user to electronic versions if available. Search MoCat will be useful for anyone who may be looking for a Government information product regardless of format. Paper, microfiche, CD-ROM or online, the MoCat can help you both find it and get it. We hope you will find what you are looking for in our Pathway Services. If you need assistance using this service, contact the GPO Access User Support Team, by:
E-mail:
gpoaccess@gpo.gov We will be continuing to develop Pathway Services, so if you have any helpful comments or good suggestions as to how to improve usefulness, please don't hesitate to get in contact with GPO's Electronic Transition Staff by:
E-mail:
ets@gpo.gov
. Networking the NTDB CD-ROM[This letter is a follow-up to the Open Letter dated June 17, 1996, published in Administrative Notes, v. 17, #9.] July 8, 1996 Several libraries have asked for network access privileges to the NTDB in advance of any potential arrangement with GPO. In order to give the depository libraries some flexibility in their use of the NTDB CD-ROM, STAT-USA is offering a special, low-cost networking license to those libraries that would like to allow greater access to the NTDB. From now until the end of fiscal year 1996 (September 30, 1996), STAT-USA will provide two levels of annual network licenses to Federal depository libraries:
Up to 5 simultaneous users of the NTDB CD-ROM,
the cost is $500.00.
For up to 15 simultaneous users, the cost is $1,000.00.
The new NTDB Windows software will debut in October. The Autographics software will require network key file in order for multiple users to be able to use the CD-ROM. We will provide those keys when available. We will continue to push for a comprehensive agreement with GPO and you will be contacted if and when an agreement goes into effect. Again, thank you for your support. Ken Rogers Director, STAT-USA FAX TO 202-482-2164
Yes, I am interested in an NTDB Network License. Please send an
invoice for:
[Circle choice] 5 simultaneous users 15 simultaneous users
to:
Name:
Federal Depository Conference and Spring Depository Library Council Meeting April 14-17, 1997
Once again, the Library Programs Service is seeking assistance from the depository community to identify topics, potential agencies, speakers, and information products for the 1997 Federal Depository Conference. The participants in the 1996 Federal Depository Conference placed the highest value on the Federal agency presentations especially the latest information on their electronic products and services. The one-hour "new documents librarians" orientation to the Conference/Council on Sunday afternoon and the three-hour brainstorming session with experienced documents librarians and GPO staff on Monday afternoon were hits as well. There was standing room only for GPO Access and Pathway Services demonstrations. Preservation issues, automated check-in of documents, and Federal statistical policy were also hot topics. Your ideas are needed to create a conference as successful as the 1996 Federal Depository Conference. The 1997 conference, regional meeting, and Depository Library Council will be held in a hotel in the Washington, DC metro area during the week of April 14-17, 1997. If you would like to volunteer as a speaker or can identify potential speakers or topics, please contact Sheila McGarr by telephone on (202) 512-1119; by fax on (202) 512-1432; or by e-mail on inspect@access.digex.net no later than October 10.
. Duncan Aldrich joined the GPO's Electronic Transition Staff (ETS) on July 1, 1996 as an expert consultant with the position title of Electronic Transition Specialist. Duncan will work on implementation of various tasks identified in the Federal Depository Library Program: Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996-2001, which is published as Exhibit 1 in GPO's Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program. Duncan will be involved in forming partnerships with FDLP libraries and Federal agencies to provide a distributed system for permanent access to Government electronic information products. Duncan will return in July, 1997 to the University of Nevada, Reno, where he is head of the Business and Government Information Center. To contact Duncan, send e-mail todaldrich@gpo.gov or call him on (202) 512-1698.
As a Federal Depository Library Inspector for 4 years, I have inspected 300 depository libraries including 50 law libraries. I am a law librarian by trade with both law and library degrees, three years of professional experience, and have worked in 4 law libraries. I am dedicated to our profession, and I also hold a high standard for who we are and what we can do. I think law libraries can be the best depositories. But I also think we sometimes fall short.
Electronic DepositoriesWhen I'm "on the road," documents staff constantly ask me about the electronic depository. When will it be here? The Basic Collection" consists of 22 key titles that the Depository Library Council determined every depository should have. These titles comprise the heart and soul of every depository collection. All but one of these titles is now available electronically, all except the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. The electronic depository is here! By way of illustration, in fiscal year 1993, 20,755 paper titles (9.66 million copies) were distributed by the Library Programs Service (LPS). Between October 95-June 96, 11,081 paper titles were mailed (4.5 million copies) On an annualized basis, we estimate that 14,000 titles (6 million copies) will be shipped this fiscal year. For many years, microfiche was two-thirds of our total distribution. In nine months of this fiscal year, it is 44%. It's here. What does this mean for law libraries? Some law libraries are attracted to the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) because it appears to offer expensive paper titles for "free." While the information products, whether in tangible or intangible format, are without cost to you until they reach your door, library funds are required for equipment, staffing, cataloging, etc. A few of these core primary legal resources will remain in paper even though they are also available electronically, including the United States Code, U.S. Reports, CFR, Federal Register, Statutes at Large, Treaties and Other International Acts of the U.S., and Treaties in Force. (If you want further details, see pages E 17-18 of the strategic plan included in the final report of the Study to Identify Measures Necessary for the Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program, SuDocs GP 3.2:EL 2/3/FINAL, or online at our Web site). Participation in the FDLP remains relevant in the online environment because GPO is negotiating no-fee access for depository libraries to online government resources that are otherwise paid databases. A law depository will be able to provide these resources at no cost to the public. In the course of inspecting all types of depositories, I have noticed that some law libraries are among those depositories that have not yet embraced electronic resources. This troubles me. I believe it is our obligation to bring no-fee law resources to the attention of our law students so that when they go out to practice they can offer their clients lower research costs than searching using commercial sources. So let me take a moment to introduce you to our latest "hot" products. I recommend that any of you who haven't seen these stop by the GPO booth in the exhibit hall and do a test run.
GPO Web SiteFirst of all, see our Web site, the GPO home page and the SuDocs home page. From there you can search congressional bills, the Federal Register, Congressional Record, and other databases--so easy even I can do it! Soon the CFR will be added, title by title! The Monthly Catalog is also on the Web site back to January 1994 containing 66,000 titles. The Monthly Catalog contains cataloging for a growing number of electronic titles with hot-linked URLs. Records appear on the Web site two days after production at OCLC. Most exciting of all, we have hot linked the URLs to the Monthly Catalog so you can go right to the site from the Web Monthly Catalog! All of GPO's cataloging should be available on the Web site within two weeks of your receipt of the item. Speaking of the Monthly Catalog, we expect the CD-ROM version to be produced in July. It will cover January-June 1996 and contain the 1996 Periodicals Supplement records. Subsequent issues of the CD-ROM will cumulate each month. In case you haven't heard, Pathway Services is a suite of software tools being developed to direct librarians and the public to Federal Government information on the Internet. It contains "Browse Topics" which is Government Internet sites arranged by topic. "Browse Titles" is Government information products available on the Internet. The Pathways Indexer, which provides a keyword search of Federal Web sites, is up and running. The address is: http://gather.access.gpo.gov/Harvest/brokers/Pathway/query. html". You begin by clicking on "Search the Web." This prototype service uses the Harvest web crawler and currently indexes a seed list of 400 .gov and .mil sites. We know this is not all government sites and GPO staff will expand the seed list of sites. The crawler accepts boolean searches. TRY IT! The other test product is found on the "Browse Electronic Titles." For graphically intensive titles that we have shipped in microfiche, we have put them on the Web. They can be viewed in any of three ways: text only to support ADA compliance, a PDF file using Adobe Acrobat, and JPEG which is a full color viewer. This is our first venture into full color electronic distribution and it is a test to elicit feedback on user preferences. Let us know what you think. To help you keep track of new electronic titles, the "Browse Electronic Titles" page also has a "New Additions" page. This page is dated and lists all the new electronic titles that have been sent for GPO cataloging. You may want to make it a habit to check this site weekly. Classification for electronic titles uses the ACSIS database identification number after the colon. Soon the titles display will have a hot link to Monthly Catalog cataloging. NTDB You must have seen the announcement on GOVDOC-L from Ken Rogers, Director of STAT-USA, that the National Trade Data Bank (NTDB) must not be mounted on a LAN. His letter will also appear in the July 15 issue of Administrative Notes (v. 17, #9). Please place NTDB on a single access work station or otherwise make it accessible by only one person at a time or purchase multi-user privileges from STAT-USA (recently announced by Ken Rogers on GOVDOC- L). We are actively negotiating with the Commerce Department to pay for additional access to this vital title as well as to expand depository access to the online STAT-USA. We are also negotiating with the Bureau of the Census for subscriptions to the electronic Data Access and Dissemination System for depositories. Acquisitions I think you would be impressed with the work LPS' Depository Administration Branch is doing to obtain electronic resources for depository libraries. Currently the focus is on retaining information content historically present in the Program. I am looking forward to when we can expand and begin including electronic Government information products beyond what has been available in the Program. The potential for the electronic depository library program is really quite grand. Be sure to look in the "Study" for the work being done on EDGAR and Federal District and Circuit Court reports. Let me just reiterate the point I most want to make: get online with documents. Get yourself a connection and a Web browser and start learning about what is available from GPO's Web site. Get a publicly accessible Internet work station as soon as possible. Be sure to include our Web site in all your legal research training. Recommended Minimum Specifications The "Recommended Minimum Specifications for Public Access Work Stations in Federal Depository Libraries," published in the May 15, 1996 issue of Administrative Notes (v. 17, #7), are intended to assist depository librarians who are planning purchases of new public access work stations capable of using most text-based FDLP electronic information products. Depository libraries are encouraged to adapt these specifications to fit their local situations. We cannot prescribe the best access for every library. Most law schools will probably be using some sort of a LAN, I imagine. So their equipment will be different. The public service requirement, however, must be met by October 1, 1996. Justice Department Memorandum I want to touch on another interesting issue that has recently developed. Historically, GPO has relied heavily on the ability of the Federal Depository Library Program to automatically obtain material as it was printed or procured through GPO. With the growing emphasis on electronic dissemination, and decreasing compliance with statutory requirements for agencies to print through GPO, identifying and obtaining information for the FDLP is becoming increasingly difficult. This problem has escalated significantly within the past few months with a May 31, 1996 Justice Department legal opinion taking the position that there are constitutional separation of powers issues with the legislative branch establishing requirements for the executive branch with respect to printing. This opinion appears to have the effect of encouraging executive branch agencies to bypass GPO for their printing services. This opinion seems to contradict the White House Memorandum signed by Leon Panetta on April 11 directing the executive branch agencies to maximize use of the capabilities of GPO for printing and duplicating services. Beyond the obvious impact of the Justice Department position on fugitive Government information, it potentially has a very serious impact on GPO's financial situation. At its annual meeting in New York, the American Library Association's Government Information Subcommittee and the GODORT Legislation Committee endorsed a resolution to "urge agencies to continue to procure printing and high volume duplicating" through GPO; "to express concerns of the library community over the May 31, 1996, Dellinger memorandum that encourages non-compliance with existing laws;" ..."urge the Department of Justice to issue a revised memorandum requiring full participation and compliance with laws" relating to the FDLP; and finally "urge Congress to revise Title 44 U.S.C. to enact adequate enforcement mechanisms for agency participation and compliance in order to ensure continued identification, dissemination, and public access through the FDLP for government information products produced by all branches and agencies of the federal government." In addition, there must be effective means for all three branches of Government to notify GPO of the intent to initiate or publish a new information product in any format, or eliminate products and services. Inspections The "FDLP Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001" (pp. E 1-14 in the final Study document) includes a change in depository library inspections. Currently we inspect all depository libraries in chronological order, with adjustments for climate, speaking engagements at meetings, and geography. The basis for inspections will revert to that specified in Title 44 U.S.C..1909 which states in part "for which need is indicated." Self-study As more Government information becomes available solely in electronic media, a rearrangement of the traditional obligations shared by GPO and the libraries has occurred. For instance, libraries or patrons are responsible for more of the printing function in the electronic world, while GPO is taking more responsibility for permanent access. Conducting depository library inspections is a resource issue as well. Some of the work performed in the course of on-site inspections will be shifted to the depository librarians in the form of a required self-study document. We received the Depository Library Council endorsement for this approach in October 1994 and published a draft self-study in the November 25, 1994 issue of Administrative Notes. Throughout 1995 and 1996, we have asked librarians to voluntarily complete the self-study. While the text is not finalized yet, we have discussed an approach to implementing the self-study that goes like this: 1. GPO will request self-studies from a group of libraries in chronological order from date of last inspection. 2. Inspectors would read and evaluate the self-studies. 3. A telephone interview of the librarian would take place to clarify any issues. 4. Based on the self-study, the interview, consultation with the Regional library, and specific criteria including recent staff changes, facility changes, past inspection history, and complaint history, GPO would determine whether an inspection is warranted. 5. If so, an inspection would be scheduled. Please do not think of this process as punitive or as a pre-judgement of your operation. Inspections are really about supporting you, helping you get the resources you need to do your job well, and fulfilling the requirements of the law. 6. We are also open to the depositories requesting an on-site inspection. Those libraries which voluntarily completed self-studies found the self-assessment process invaluable to their operation. In many cases, procedures were tightened up, weeding and promotion initiated, computer equipment purchased, etc. I would recommend that any of you whose depository operations were evaluated before 1991, review for background only the draft self-study text from Administrative Notes or from the GOVDOC-L archives. It can be a good tool for anyone wanting to examine their depository operation in tandem with the Instructions to Depository Libraries, Superseded List, and the Federal Depository Library Manual and Supplements. A final version of the self-study will be completed later this summer in print and electronic form. We are also putting together an FDLP administrative Web page that will have our official program communications on it, including Administrative Notes, the Instructions, self-study, etc. It's not "ready for prime time" yet. We have more coding and testing to do before we publish the Web address.
[note: Greta Boeringer is leaving her position in GPO as Depository Library Inspector on August 16, 1996. She will assume a position as a reference specialist at the Law Library of Congress.]
Leaping into the Future with Government Information,þ a celebration held February 29, 1996, launched New Mexico further into the electronic millennium. The University of New Mexico Zimmerman Library hosted this auspicious event to inaugurate the Model Gateway to GPO Access and to expand its leadership as a Federal depository regional library, by providing New Mexico with access to Federal electronic information. Months of planning culminated with a festive ceremony and an interactive online demonstration of GPO Access. Guest speakers, staff aides representing New Mexicoþs Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman, President Richard Peck of the University of New Mexico (UNM) and Art Melendres, President of the UNM Board of Regents, commended the Library on its leadership in the Rio Grande Technology Corridor, which includes the National Laboratories (i.e. - Sandia and Los Alamos) in the state. Each speaker presented commemorative plaques to Steve Rollins, Interim Dean of Library Services, and Dr. Susan Deese-Roberts, Director of Public Services, who accepted on behalf of the Government Information Department (GID), the unit responsible for conducting the regional library functions. The library community was well represented by distinguished guests from the other regional depository and selective depositories in the state. Representatives from state and tribal governments, businesses and the public also participated. The University's Public Affairs office photographed this memorable event. One of Albuquerque's major newspapers also gave the event coverage in an article that featured Dan Barkley, Monica Dorame, Barbara Gienger and Clark McLean, GID staff who assisted in the event's organization. The one hour event, held in the Library's beautiful WPA southwest designed wing which was recently remodeled to include Internet connections, took two months of planning and coordinating: budgets, invitations, guest lists, speakers' schedules, equipment and publicity. Everyone in GID helped with preparations including making name tags with red, white and blue ribbons, writing invitations in calligraphy, recording RSVPs, and ordering flowers and red, white and blue balloons. More than five hundred invitations were sent and the response was very favorable. An interactive demonstration to showcase GPO Access was an important part of the ceremony. Preparations involved using three Pentium computers with Ethernet cards, a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panel and an overhead projector for the brief demonstration. Two computers were placed at the back of the room for a "hands-on" experience for the invited guests. In the event circumstances prevented a live Internet connection, the online presentation was saved in advance on a floppy diskette. The demonstration highlighted searching in the Congressional Record for the proclamation announcing UNM's Gateway status, the Federal Register announcement to show the timeliness of GPO Access and two quick searches of other databases on topics of local interest such as Kirtland Air Force Base in GAO Reports and Indian Grave Protection regulations in the Federal Register. The hours spent in planning the celebration did not compare with the hours required for establishing GPO Access. The celebration brought together leaders from the U NM Health Science Center Library, UNM Law Library and the campus computing center who aided in the successful implementation of GPO Access. Planning discussions focused on two ways to ensure equitable connections to GPO Access: a text-based approach based upon UNM's established gopher and a Web interface with software developed at Purdue University. Gopher access would provide broad public access to anyone with a computer, modem and communication software whether or not associated with the University of New Mexico. The Web access, with its graphical interface, would be available on campus or to the public with a private Internet provider. Model Gateway status was as an important recognition of UNM's leadership role in the state as a Federal electronic information coordinator. The partnerships formed and nurtured with this project have served to expand access to Government Information to all constituents. In addition, Dan Barkley and Clark McLean, who coordinated the grand opening with the able help of GID staff, have found the depositoryþs promotional outreach has been strengthened. As the Government Printing Office continues to encourage depositories to become Model Gateways, UNM's experience will encourage other libraries to take a leap forward in providing expanded access to government information.
.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for
inviting me to present the
views of the Government Printing Office (GPO) on public access to
Government information in
the 21st century. My views concern proposals to reform the
public
printing and documents
statutes of Title 44 of the U.S.
Code, GPO's authorizing law.
For more than a century GPO has served as the
Government's
printer and publications
distributor, providing prompt and economical printing and
reproduction
services as well as
comprehensive and equitable dissemination of the Government's
information products that have
public interest or educational value.
Today, some observers are advocating a major overhaul of
Title
44, but there is no
consensus on the direction reform should take. Some want to
privatize
all Government printing.
Others want to decentralize printing and distribution authority.
This is
the case not only with the
executive branch, but with the House of Representatives. Still
others
advocate a new Federal
information policy based principally, if not solely, on
electronic
technology.
To date, four bills have been introduced in the House of
Representatives to accomplish
these goals, in different ways, although none has emerged from
committee. A draft bill to
establish an electronic Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP)
has
been circulated by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to several Members of
Congress, including the
leadership of this Committee, but it has not been introduced.
The
House Oversight Committee
recently approved a House Document Management Plan that would
essentially result in the
transfer of those GPO congressional printing functions that
support the
House to the House itself.
Some agencies have apparently decided to take matters into their
own
hands and have started
using joint ventures with private sector publishers to produce
their
publications. As the
Superintendent of Documents described to this Committee in the
hearing on June 18, 1996, these
measures are resulting in copyright or copyright-like
restrictions on
dissemination, undermining
the central purpose of Title 44 to make public information
publicly
available.
Recently, the Justice Department's Office of Legal
Counsel issued
a memorandum opinion
claiming that GPO's "extensive control" over executive branch
printing
and duplicating violates the
constitutional principle of separation of powers. The opinion
underscores the goal of the National
Performance Review (NPR) to allow the executive branch to
establish
its own printing policy.
I do not agree with this opinion. I think it was wrongly
decided,
and I think it sends the
wrong message to agencies and the public. GPO does not have
"extensive control" over executive
branch printing. We perform an administrative function to ensure
that
executive branch printing is
performed economically and in the interests of the taxpayer, and
to
ensure that the publications
are made available to the public on a comprehensive and equitable
basis. By signaling that the
Justice Department will not uphold the law, the message is being
sent
that there is no need for
economy in public printing, and that providing effective public
access
is a secondary concern.
In September 1994, the Administration reached an
agreement with
Congress to maintain
the status quo regarding printing and duplicating arrangements
for
fiscal year 1995 until the
leadership of the congressional committees of jurisdiction and
the
Administration worked out a
legislative approach to reform Federal printing. It specified a
number
of policies, including that all
printing procurement should be conducted through GPO to the
extent
required by law, that
existing agency in-plant operations could continue but not
expand, and
that all publications
required by law should be made available to the FDLP. Because no
new
legislative approach was
developed, in April 1996 the White House Chief of Staff issued a
memorandum that substantively
reiterated the September 1994 agreement for the ensuing 12
months.
I think this is a far more
constructive approach to a possible reform of Title 44 than the
one
taken by the Justice
Department.
Simply because a law has been on the books for many years
does
not mean that it is a
"painful anachronism," as one witness recently remarked to this
Committee. I agree that there is
room for improvement to the statutes. I am well aware of the
views of
GPO's critics, and I agree
that we need to take the opportunity now to make changes that
will
address these concerns, to
the extent the changes do not conflict with the overall goal of
achieving
taxpayer savings and
promoting public access. But I do not think that a sweeping
overhaul
of the laws is necessary or
even desirable to achieve this. I think many changes can be
accommodated within the current
general structure of the law.
To those who want to privatize, I would remind them that
GPO has
moved between 75
and 80 percent of all printing we handle out the door to private
contractors without changing the
law. If Congress decides it wants the Congressional Record and
other
legislative documents
turned over to the private sector, the law would not have to be
changed,
although Congress
would have to be prepared to pay more and to relinquish a
considerable
amount of control.
While some changes to reflect the impact of electronic
information
technology are needed,
I also think technology poses less of a challenge to Title 44
than the
conventional wisdom
suggests. Within the structure of the current law, we completely
converted GPO's prepress
processes to electronics, increasing productivity and lowering
costs.
That conversion made a vast
amount of downsizing possible. Twenty-two years ago there were
more
than 8,600 employees at
GPO, with more than 1,000 in our composition division; today
there are
about 3,800, with fewer
than 500 involved with prepress work. With the move to
direct-to-plate
technology, there will be
even fewer involved with prepress. The conversion also made it
possible for GPO to move
directly into CD-ROM premastering and online dissemination
without
massive development costs.
The nature of printing itself has changed dramatically
over the
past two decades. GPO
has not only kept up with those changes but helped to lead many
of
them. We are continuing to
change the nature of our operations, as our fiber optic links
with Capitol
Hill, our assistance to
agency publishers and printers, and our training programs for
agency
personnel all demonstrate.
This progress has been and can continue to be accomplished within
the
structure of the current
law.
The single most important change to Title 44 we have
needed was
statutory clarification of
our role in electronic information dissemination, and that was
achieved,
through the leadership of
this Committee, with the passage of the GPO Electronic
Information
Access Enhancement Act of
1993 (P.L. 103-40). That law requires us to provide online
versions of
the Congressional Record
and the Federal Register, and to work with Federal agencies to
provide
other information online.
I think this was a wise way to structure GPO's electronic
information
dissemination authority, and
experience is proving that point. Our implementation of the GPO
Access service, which now is
used by more than 2 million people every month, has shown that
GPO
can successfully
participate in the electronic dissemination arena. We make a
large
volume of congressional
information available, and an increasing number of executive
agencies
are approaching us to offer
their products and to mount their Government Information Locator
Service (GILS) records on the
Access service.
As the recently concluded "Study to Identify Measures
Necessary
For a Successful
Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library
Program"
found, the Access service can
now be used as the platform to move the FDLP into the electronic
future, representing a major
step forward in Federal information dissemination policy. Some
adjustments to chapter 19 of Title
44 are needed to facilitate the transition, but I do not think
that
electronic technology itself
necessarily spells the end of Title 44. As the FDLP study
concluded,
there is an important role for
a centralized entity in a distributed system to assist the public
in
standardizing information,
providing locator and pathway services, and coordinating
permanent
access.
There are other changes that could be made to the law to
address
specific requirements. I
think the transfer of certain JCP authorities to the Public
Printer would
obviate the Justice
Department's constitutional concerns. A change in GPO's funding
mechanism to allow us to
finance general administrative expenses from appropriations
rather than
through cost-recovery
from our customers would put us on an equal footing with the way
other
agencies are financed
and reduce printing charges to Congress and agencies. Limited
changes to our sales authority,
such as increasing our discount authority, would allow us to
manage the
sales program more
effectively. GPO's name should be changed to recognize our
involvement with a broad range of
information dissemination strategies, and outdated or archaic
provisions
of the law--such as
references to stereotype plates--should be dispensed with.
But the principal structure of Title 44--a centrally
managed
printing, printing procurement,
and documents dissemination capability, providing localized
service
through a nationwide network
of procurement offices, bookstores, and other operations--should
remain in place. It simply saves
too much money for the taxpayers and performs too valuable a
service
for public access to be
done away with. In none of the proposals for change that have
been
offered to date are there the
kind of benefits that Title 44 and GPO currently provide.
In our production plant, Congress has direct control over
a
cost-effective system for
obtaining printing that is essential to the orderly conduct of
legislative
business. In our Printing
Procurement Program, which works directly with the printing
industry,
the agencies have
immediate access to one of the Government's most successful
public
sector/private sector
partnerships for obtaining their printing needs at highly
competitive
prices. In GPO's
Superintendent of Documents programs, the public has a single,
highly
visible system to provide
comprehensive and equitable access to the vast wealth of
information
produced by the
Government in both print and electronic format through depository
libraries and over the Internet
as well as through our sales program. Under the proposals I have
seen
to date, many of these
benefits would be reduced if not lost.
With the growing use of electronics, there is the
temptation to say
that the Government no
longer needs a printing capability. I think this temptation
should be
resisted. Last year, we
produced over $800 million in printing services (and that is only
about
half of all the printing the
Government produces), sold some $80 million worth of documents,
and
distributed tens of
thousands of titles to depository libraries. We measured the
printing of
congressional publications
alone at approximately 2 billion units, or copy-pages. Tax
forms, press
releases, passports,
informational pamphlets and books, regulations, statutes,
statistical
data, and more--in printed form
these documents represent a major avenue of communication between
the Government and the
public.
Moreover, printing remains an effective safeguard for
ensuring that
those without access to
computers--and there are many--can still use Government
information,
and for guaranteeing
permanence. The transition to full electronics is certainly
coming, but
it is a long way off. We
need to manage that transition effectively, and maintaining a
cost-effective printing and
dissemination capability for the foreseeable future gives us an
important
management tool.
A major issue confronting Title 44 is a failure on the
part of
executive branch agencies to
comply with the law. This Committee has already heard testimony
on
the consequences of
increased agency control over their publications from GPO's
Superintendent of Documents.
Another problem is the growth of under-utilized capacity in
agency
plants, and the natural
tendency of agencies to try to keep that capacity occupied with
work
which otherwise should be
procured through GPO. To ensure taxpayer savings and equitable
public access requires vigilance
by Congress over the performance of agency printing and
dissemination
capabilities. This hearing
is a good example of what I am talking about.
There are other things Congress can do. It can require a
review
of executive agency
printing plants. The review should not necessarily be designed
to close
down all agency printing
capacity, as the printing industry has suggested. We know that
there
is a need in the agencies for
a capability to produce quick turnaround printing to support
administrative operations, and we do
not have a problem with that. We also do not have a problem with
certain agencies, such as the
national security agencies, having the authority to produce their
own
printing in-plant when doing
so is clearly in the national or public interest.
The problem comes when capability established for simple
internal
administrative
purposes is expanded to produce printing needs that are more
cost-effectively performed through
GPO's procurement program, and when agencies fail or refuse to
provide publications produced
internally for public distribution through GPO's programs. The
objective
of a review--and it could
be conducted by OMB as well as Congress--should be to ensure that
agencies are equipped with
only the capacity necessary to fulfill either their own limited
administrative needs or, as in the case
of the General Services Administration (GSA), to support the
limited
internal administrative needs
of multiple agencies grouped in close physical proximity through
the
central administrative
support unit (CASU) or similar concept. GPO can assist in this
review.
Congress should also
review the way some agencies have expanded their limited
authorities,
gained either through
statute or by waivers from the JCP, into significant printing and
dissemination operations that
undermine the letter and spirit of Title 44.
In summary, I urge this Committee to critically examine
the various
proposals to amend
Title 44 that have been advanced to date and to balance them
against
the public benefits that Title
44 currently achieves. Congress took a positive step forward
when it
enacted the "panoply of
reforms," as one observer has put it, that constitute the current
public
printing and documents
statutes. There are changes that can be made within the
structure of
Title 44 that would be
responsive to many of the concerns that have been raised, but
care
needs to be taken that they do
not cancel out the benefits achieved by the current system.
PRIVATIZATION PROPOSALS
I testified on current privatization proposals, contained
principally
in H.R. 1024, before the
House Oversight Committee on August 1, 1995. As I stated at that
time,
between 75 and 80
percent of GPO printing is already contracted out; privatization
proposals target congressional
printing primarily. Privatizing congressional printing would
have a
strong potential for leading to
increased costs. Congress's control over its printing is also
likely to be
compromised.
Earlier, on February 2, 1995, in testimony before the
House
Subcommittee on Legislative
Appropriations, former Public Printer Thomas McCormick, appointed
by
President Nixon, and
former Public Printer John Boyle, appointed by President Carter,
both
disagreed that the concept
of privatizing the printing GPO performs for Congress would
generate
savings.
Procurement of Congressional Printing
GPO fully supports the procurement of printing that is
commercially procurable, e.g.,
purchasable from the private sector on the same terms
(timeliness,
quality, and control) at less
cost. However, based on long experience with Government
printing, we
have serious concerns
about whether any savings can be achieved by procuring
congressional
printing. We also have
concerns about the level of control that could be retained over
printing
that is essential to the
legislative process if it is commercially procured.
It has yet to be established that Congress can procure
items such
as the Congressional
Record and related products from the private sector on the same
terms
as it now receives them, at
reduced cost. The historical record, although dated, shows the
opposite: that when the
production of congressional work was removed from the private
sector
and turned over to the
newly created GPO, Congress realized immediate and lasting
savings
on printing production.
The House recently voted to require GPO to study
privatizing the
Congressional Record
and the Federal Register. The study, however, will not be able
to fully
disclose what a private
sector contractor's costs would likely be. Without a clear
decision by
Congress to procure
congressional work and the consequent expectation by potential
contractors that they will be held
financially and legally responsible for performing the work under
the
estimates they have
submitted, any such cost estimate should be regarded as
speculative.
The volume of congressional printing would preclude all
but a few
of the very largest
printing firms in the United States from competing for this work,
since
the average firm employs
just 20 people, according to printing industry estimates.
Widespread
competition for Government
printing jobs is a key factor to achieving any savings in
printing
procurement. Without such
competition, the potential to achieve savings from the
procurement of
congressional work is not
likely, and in fact the costs of this printing would most likely
rise above
current levels.
If the sense is to break up congressional printing jobs
and parse
out this work to a wide
variety of printers, economies made achievable by the
consolidated
operation of GPO's electronic
prepress systems are likely to be overtaken by the increased
administrative burden of managing
multiple procured jobs among multiple contractors. The control
of
congressional printing would
also be a problem under such conditions. Some observers have
suggested that by changing the
delivery requirements of congressional printing, it could be
procurable.
That is probably true, but
changing those requirements would also substantially lower GPO's
production costs as well.
Comparison of GPO and Private Sector Costs
GPO performs congressional printing at cost, while a
contractor
would charge cost plus a
percentage for profit. There are allegations that GPO's costs
are too
high for the services
performed, but these allegations are usually made within the
context of
comparing average
printers' wages drawn from around the Nation to the wages paid to
GPO
employees in the
Washington, DC, area.
These comparisons often reveal a great deal less than
they
purport to. GPO is not
comparable to any other printing firm in the United States, based
first
on the types of work GPO
is required to do (book and job work, newspaper printing, and a
wide
range of other work).
Most printers specialize in one kind of work; GPO must maintain
expertise in many. As a
Government agency, GPO is required by law and regulation to
maintain
many expensive
programs and operations (Inspector General, EEO, etc.) that
private
sector companies are not
required to have. GPO's employees are entitled by law to
organize and
have union
representation. Most private sector companies, because of their
size,
are unorganized.
Compared to other organized workplaces in the Washington,
DC,
metropolitan area (one
of the highest cost-of-living areas in the Nation), GPO's wages
are not
wholly out of line.
Compositors' wages at the Washington Post for both day and night
shifts, for example, when
averaged against GPO's are in fact slightly higher; this fact
needs to be
weighed against data
indicating that an average issue of the Congressional Record
contains
4 to 6 times the amount of
type as in an average metropolitan daily newspaper. Wage
comparisons for press and bindery
work with other area printing wage contracts also indicate much
smaller
disparities than has been
alleged. The charge that GPO's costs are wholly out of line with
costs
in the printing industry in
general needs to be balanced against these factors.
Comparison of the Congressional Record to a
Newspaper
There is little realistic comparability between the
production of the
Congressional Record
and the average newspaper, regardless of the newspaper's delivery
system. A large metropolitan
daily newspaper will run approximately 60 pages each day, and may
vary from 48 to 72 pages, a
much more tightly defined and consistent variation from the
median
than the Record. With the
exception of front pages held open for late breaking news, a
daily
newspaper follows a schedule
of rigid and consistent deadlines. Most ad space, which takes up
a vast
amount of newspaper
space, is preset, and journalists are frequently assigned column
inches
for their stories. As noted
above, the average Record contains 4 to 6 times the amount of
type as
the average metropolitan
daily newspaper, which contains a high percentage of camera copy
ads,
photos, and other work.
A variety of unique and complex requirements drive the
production
of the Congressional
Record. GPO must print everything that happens on the floor of
Congress each day in the
Record, regardless of whether the printing totals 16 pages or 400
pages.
We cannot assign column
inches to Members; if a Member speaks at any length on a subject,
if
a Senator conducts a
filibuster, GPO must print every word spoken. The printing
cannot
occur until Members have had
a chance to "revise and extend" their remarks, as is their
privilege. This
frequently adds new
material to be printed, much of which has not been captured
electronically, such as newspaper
articles and clippings. The Record must contain additional
materials,
such as the Daily Digest, that
can be compiled only when the day's proceedings are ended. Print
production cannot take place
until Congress has adjourned for the day or GPO makes a decision
to
cut the proceedings so that
at least some portion of the Record will be available when the
Members
reconvene. In all of
these respects, the production of the Record is significantly
different
from the production of a
newspaper. Indeed, apart from the fact that both products are
printed
on newsprint, there is little
similarity at all.
Desirability of Procuring Congressional Printing
The overriding question that needs to be addressed is the
desirability of contracting out
printing needs which are essential to the conduct of the Nation's
legislative business. Within the
context of history, this represents less a movement toward reform
than
it does a revisitation of the
past, when congressional printing was the exclusive province of
private
printers.
As history discloses, contractors frequently failed to
perform on
time or even to complete
the work, and generated enormous costs (for their time).
Congress
remedied these problems with
the creation of the GPO in close physical proximity and under
close
congressional scrutiny.
Government performance of this critical work also
parallels the
performance by many
other governments of their legislative printing both among the 50
States
and around the world.
GPO has taken a variety of measures, including equipment
back-ups, personnel
contingency plans, and paper storage, to ensure that
congressional
work is delivered on time
when it is needed. GPO has inclement weather emergency plans to
ensure the plant is always
staffed and operating when Congress is in session, and a variety
of
security measures are in place
to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of highly important
congressional work. In November
1995, at the specific request of the Senate Majority Leader and
the
Speaker of the House of
Representatives, GPO kept its production staff on duty during the
Government-wide budget
shutdown to provide essential printing services. As will be
recalled,
most Government contractors
were forced to cease operations during the budget shutdown due to
lack of funding authority by
the contracting agencies to continue operations. These factors
must be
weighed in any decision
to remove the responsibility for this critical work from GPO.
House Document Management Plan
Recently, the House Oversight Committee approved a House
Document Management
Plan. The specific objective of this plan is to "decrease our
reliance on
GPO." In the resolution
approving this plan, House officials are directed to work with
GPO to
develop a document
management system, and we will provide all possible assistance.
We
are concerned, however,
that this plan undermines the capability already resident in GPO
to
support all congressional
printing.
The premise of the plan to provide the House with an
electronic
document management
capability appears to overlook the initiatives GPO is undertaking
to
provide increased electronic
document capabilities for all of Congress, particularly through
the
conversion of all congressional
documents to Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). The
plan apparently would rely
on congressional staff for document inputting, formatting, and
management, despite recent
reductions in congressional staff. Also, the high turnover rate
for
congressional staff would tend
to work against the effectiveness of training efforts to operate
the
document management system.
It is unclear from the plan what would happen to existing
electronic
interfaces with the
Appropriations Committee, the House Office of Legislative
Counsel,
House Information Resources,
and the Office of Law Revision Counsel.
Where public dissemination is concerned, the document
management system apparently
would utilize the Library of Congress's THOMAS information
system,
leaving in question the
provision of access to key House documents, including the House
portion of the Congressional
Record, through GPO's Access service, which is required by law to
provide public online access to
the Record.
NATIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
The concept of decentralizing Government, both the
management
and the conduct of
printing authority, to Federal agencies has a number of problems.
On
February 3, 1994, I testified
before this Committee on proposals by the NPR to "reinvent"
public
printing by decentralizing
authority, stating that they would have negative impacts on costs
and
public access. I was joined
in this view by the representatives of the printing industry and
the
library community.
Earlier, during the 103d Congress, the House considered
legislation that essentially would
have implemented the recommendations of the NPR with respect to
GPO. The recommendations
were amended substantially before they were passed by the House,
however, and the Senate did
not take them up.
"Monopoly" Characterization is Inaccurate
Proposals for decentralizing Government printing in the
executive
branch are targeted at
ending GPO's so-called "monopoly" on Government printing.
However,
a monopoly confers on
an organization the means to exercise exclusive control over the
provision of a specific
commodity. GPO cannot be accurately characterized as exercising
this
kind of control over
Government printing.
GPO is not the only organization providing Government
printing.
Only half of all
Government printing, as measured by OMB in the U.S. Budget, is
produced by or through GPO.
There are at least 145 printing plants operated by other Federal
agencies under the authority of
waivers originally issued by the JCP pursuant to Title 44. In
addition,
agencies most likely also
operate a number of other printing and duplicating facilities, as
OMB
has found in the past. Title
44 (and to a limited extent other legislation in section 207 of
the
Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act) contains provisions for agencies to contract for their own
printing,
and there are also a
number of agencies, such as the national security agencies, that
are
authorized by law to perform
their own printing. The claim that GPO is a "monopoly,"
therefore, has
no basis in fact.
It also has no basis because exclusive control over
printing prices
is denied to GPO in the
area of printing procurement. The prices of the work performed
by
thousands of commercial
printers for GPO are determined by the competitive forces of the
marketplace, not by GPO, which
adds only a marginal surcharge to cover the costs of procurement
services. Most executive branch
printing sent to GPO is purchased from the private sector,
subjecting
the vast majority of all
Government printing to intensely competitive economic forces
rather
than any kind of
monopolistic control.
Finally, the way we conduct business for executive branch
customers undermines the
claim that GPO is a "monopoly." GPO's mission is to fulfill the
customer's printing needs. To do
so we provide a capability to produce over 100 different products
and
services ("books" alone
constitute only one such product category), and we maintain an
extensive equipment line, a
sophisticated range of graphic design services, a highly trained
production and procurement
workforce, a master bid list of a vastly diversified range of
printing
providers in the private sector,
and specialists in marketing, sales, and other Government
information
mechanisms to help meet
agency printing and dissemination requirements. The capability
to
provide such a diversified
range of products and services--regardless of how uneconomical
some
of these capabilities may
occasionally be to maintain--is not the hallmark of a monopoly,
which
typically bends customer
demand to suit its needs.
Comparison of GPO and GSA as Procurement
Models
The question has been raised whether agencies might not
be
better off procuring their
own printing, just as they are able to procure items that they
formerly
were required to obtain
through the GSA. However, the use of GSA as a model for
comparison
to GPO's procurement
operation has a number of limitations.
GSA uses the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in
conducting
procurements. GPO
utilizes its own Printing Procurement Regulation (PPR), which
ensures
a greater degree of
flexibility and timeliness in printing procurements than the FAR.
GSA
buys "off-the-shelf" items,
some of which are relatively easy to obtain through other
channels.
GPO, by contrast, is involved
only in the procurement of printing, which is essentially a
custom
product since the specifications
of each job vary widely, and it must be timely to have value.
Buying printing is not like buying paper clips. A
knowledge of
printing requirements and
processes is essential to ensuring the best possible value. GPO
printing specifications are
developed by knowledgeable printing experts. There are cases in
which
agencies have ended up
paying exorbitant prices for printing they have procured
themselves.
For example, the national
news media recently reported that the Department of Labor
incurred a
$30,000 printing bill for
copying services that would have cost approximately one-tenth
that
amount if procured with the
same requirements through GPO, and approximately $500 if procured
through GPO utilizing GPO-
recommended cost-saving measures. Thus, comparing GSA's
operation, which buys many things,
with GPO's, which buys only printing, does not fully address the
possible impacts of
decentralizing printing procurement authority back to Federal
agencies.
The decentralization of printing procurement authority is
likely to
significantly increase the
costs of Federal printing. With such authority, agencies are
likely to
choose to produce much of
their printing in-house, which several studies have shown is more
expensive than procuring
printing from the private sector. For those agencies that choose
to
procure printing, increased
costs are also likely. It would be extremely costly for each
agency to
maintain the range of
procurement services that GPO provides. GPO maintains a
significant
universe of competitors
(10,000 private sector printers) that would be difficult for each
agency
to maintain. Without it,
competition would decrease and prices would be likely to rise.
In an
environment of reduced
competition, there are also likely to be increased opportunities
for
favoritism and corruption in
Federal printing, twin evils the GPO was originally established
to
prevent.
GPO offers "one-stop-shopping" to printing contractors.
Without
it, the contractors would
be compelled to increase their sales forces to search for
contracting
opportunities among multiple
agencies, which would increase printing costs. They would also
confront the difficulties imposed
by having to deal with a multitude of solicitation formats, a
problem that
is overcome by GPO's
standardized procurement solicitation packages. GPO offers a
package
of contracting services.
We review requisitions and offer suggestions for economizing;
develop
specifications; compete,
award, and administer contracts; perform press inspections and
other
on-site reviews to assure
quality; perform quality control reviews utilizing a unique
program that
quantifies quality ranking
factors that has become widely recognized throughout the
industry;
provide voucher examination
and payment services; provide legal advice on contracting and
make
available a dispute resolution
service through GPO's Board of Contract Appeals. For every
agency to
provide a similar scope of
services would result in increased printing costs.
In a centralized procurement system, GPO can ensure that
Federal
printing procurements
are conducted in concert with pertinent statutory requirements,
such as
requirements for the use
of recycled paper and vegetable inks, and can ensure that printed
products are placed in the
appropriate dissemination programs, such as the FDLP. For these
reasons, a decentralized printing
procurement program has several distinct disadvantages.
Justice Department Opinion
I do not concur with the view of the Department of
Justice's (DOJ)
Office of Legal
Counsel that GPO has an "extensive control" over executive branch
printing that renders our
operations unconstitutional. We handle executive work in a
purely
ministerial capacity. We
cannot refuse to fulfill an executive branch requisition for
printing. We
have no control over the
editorial or informational content of executive branch
publications. Our
job is only to ensure that
printing requisitions are fulfilled in the most cost effective
and timely
manner possible, and to
provide for the comprehensive and equitable dissemination of
Government information to the
public through copies of publications purchased with GPO funds.
These functions are performed under the authority of the
Public
Printer who, like
members of the Cabinet, heads of executive branch agencies, and
other
high level Federal
officials, is appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate and
serves solely at the
pleasure of the President.
Under the law, the Public Printer maintains no veto
authority over
executive branch work.
This view was expressed in a September 13, 1993, memorandum of
the
DOJ Office of Legal
Counsel. At that time, the Office of Legal Counsel said that the
requirement contained in section
207 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act [which was
re-enacted
and is currently at P.L.
103-283] for agencies to procure printing by or through GPO:
does not violate the separation of powers by delegating
executive
authority to the GPO ...
It does not give the GPO authority to refuse to print any
materials,
but merely requires
that printing be procured "by and through" the GPO.
Moreover,
because 44 U.S.C. . 1101
provides that "[the] Public Printer shall execute such
printing and
binding for the President
as he may order and make requisition for," the executive
branch
retains its ability to
ensure that materials are printed.
A March 11, 1994, memorandum of the Office of Legal
Counsel
reaffirmed this position.
Since there have been no procedural changes or statutory
modifications
of any substance in this
area of the law since that time, GPO's general counsel has
requested
the DOJ Office of Legal
Counsel to reconsider this matter. We have also referred the
Justice
Department's memorandum
to the general counsel of the GAO, which in a September 30, 1994,
letter
to then-JCP Chairman
Ford held that contractors performing printing work directly for
Federal
agencies outside the
authority of Title 44 and section 207 may not be paid from
appropriated
funds.
If the Justice Department's memorandum were followed, it
would
have strongly negative
consequences for Government printing. Approximately 90 percent
of all
printing work performed
by GPO is for the executive branch. Approximately two-thirds of
all
publications in the FDLP are
executive branch publications, as are about 90 percent of all
sales
program publications.
Assuming that executive branch printing policy would be
characterized
by decentralization as
recommended by the NPR, the removal of executive branch printing
from GPO would increase
the cost of Government printing significantly. It would also
increase the
cost and reduce both the
comprehensiveness and equity of current publications distribution
policies, such as the FDLP,
undercutting the congressional appropriations made for that
purpose.
In July 1994, when President Clinton signed the
requirement into
law that the
procurement of all printing, including duplicating, must with
certain
exceptions be performed
through GPO, he expressed an intention to work toward Government
printing reform.
Subsequently, congressional leaders and representatives of the
Administration worked out an
agreement to maintain the status quo under Title
44
for the ensuing year while
they worked together to produce a plan for Title 44 reform.
Under this agreement, they stated that agencies would:
(1) use
procurement as the
preferred method of fulfilling printing requirements; (2) conduct
all
printing procurement through
GPO to the extent required by law; (3) continue normal operation
of
existing agency in-plant
facilities without expansion; (4) continue to carry out plans to
downsize
in-plant capacity; and (5)
ensure that all Government publications as defined in Title 44
are made
available to the FDLP.
The agreement was communicated to the heads of all executive
branch
departments and agencies
in a memorandum dated September 19, 1994, by the Director of OMB,
who stated that "agency
compliance with these policies, and cooperation with
congressional
oversight, is essential to the
ultimate success of a comprehensive initiative to reform
Government
printing."
On April 11, 1996, the White House Chief of Staff
reiterated this
agreement and its
specifics in another memorandum to the heads of departments and
agencies. This approach
provides a far more constructive basis for reforming Title 44,
one that
emphasizes taxpayer savings
and ensures public access, than the approach taken by the Justice
Department.
ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY
Where electronic information technology is concerned,
there is a
view among some
observers that GPO's activities should be restricted to print
formats and
that we should have no
role in electronic dissemination. However, there are strong
reasons for
arguing that effective
public access to electronic Government information should involve
rather than exclude GPO.
GPO in fact already plays a significant and successful
role in the
electronic dissemination
of Government information. For several years we have been a
leading
Government producer of
CD-ROM. In 1992, we received the annual award of the Special
Interest
Group for CD-ROM
Applications and Technology (SIGCAT), the largest CD-ROM user
group
in the world. In 1993,
the GAO cited our CD-ROM program as one of the most
cost-effective
in the Government,
specifically noting that GPO's CD-ROM products are among the
least
expensive for users. That
same year, Congress enacted the GPO Electronic Information Access
Enhancement Act (P.L. 103-
40). The act mandated GPO to provide online versions of the
Congressional Record and Federal
Register and authorized the Superintendent of Documents to work
with
Congress and Federal
agencies to put additional information online.
The implementation of P.L. 103-40 has been enormously
successful. Since we made the
GPO Access service free to all users last December, we have
averaged
more than 2 million
document downloads per month, and the number is growing; in June
1996, it reached 2.5 million.
The service, which is now accessible through GPO's home page on
the
World Wide Web
(http://www.access.gpo.gov),
currently features 58 databases,
including
a variety of agency GILS
records, and it continues to grow. Some of the databases we
prepare
for GPO Access are also
utilized by the Library of Congress for its THOMAS information
service
and by House Information
Resources.
P.L. 103-40 statutorily recognized an electronic
information role for
GPO that we had been
seeking for some time. The results of its implementation confirm
that
GPO can participate
effectively in the electronic information dissemination arena.
We just
concluded a major study of
how to convert the FDLP to a predominately electronic basis
involving
a broad range of
participants from both the Government and the library and
information
communities. Among
other things, the study found strong support for having a single
entity
in the Superintendent of
Documents to coordinate library-related information dissemination
activities in the electronic era.
Electronic Technology in Support of the Printing
Process
GPO is often mistakenly characterized as an outmoded
printer,
when in fact the
technologies used in the central office plant are
state-of-the-art. GPO
pioneered electronic
prepress technologies in the Federal Government, and indeed
throughout most of the printing
industry, beginning in the 1960's. By the late 1970's, the
production of
most congressional
publications had been converted to electronics, and in the early
1980's
GPO concluded its phase-
out of hot metal typesetting. Since then, GPO has gone through
successive generations of
automated composition technologies, each more powerful and less
expensive than its predecessor.
Today, GPO's electronic prepress systems are
characterized by a
complex of direct
electronic fiber optic linkages to a variety of congressional
offices on
Capitol Hill for data
interchange. Since 1985, GPO has been connected to Congress with
a
24-line fiber optic network.
Only 6 of the lines are in use, but GPO deliberately oversized
the
network to handle Congress's
expanding needs for electronic interchange.
Using this network, GPO currently receives a portion of
Senate
proceedings for the
Congressional Record directly via fiber optic transmission, and
we have
begun receiving input
from the House. Drafts of legislation destined to be introduced
are
received electronically from
the Senate and House Offices of Legislative Counsel; the input is
stored
at GPO and can be
accessed directly back on Capitol Hill for redrafting. A
significant
number of congressional
committees are also linked directly with GPO's prepress systems
for the
preparation of hearings,
committee prints, and other documents.
GPO's electronic systems make it possible to manipulate
data and
convey it from one
publication to another, a capability that saves time, effort, and
money.
With this capability, bills,
reports, and other documents can be conveyed for production in
the
Congressional Record, as
required by congressional rules, without the need to rekey the
data.
Once inputted, the data from
GPO's composition systems can also be converted for production in
multiple media, including
print, CD-ROM, and online access.
GPO's electronic data capabilities are unique because of
format
standardization and the
volume of its database storage capacity. Currently, GPO has 21
gigabytes of online storage, most
of which is protected by RAID 5 technology, and an additional 120
gigabytes of near-line optical
disk storage in the form of an 88-disk juke box. A second juke
box
ensures data protection.
GPO's WAIS databases reside on a computer with 27.5 gigabytes of
online storage. All databases
are backed up regularly to ensure reliability.
With the increasing productivity of electronic
information
technologies supporting its
printing systems, GPO has made significant strides forward in
reducing
the costs of congressional
printing. In the past two decades, GPO's workforce has declined
by
more than 50 percent,
virtually all of the reduction due to technology.
At the same time, costs have come down. Discounted for
inflation,
the cost per page of
producing the Congressional Record is today only two thirds of
what it
was before the Record was
converted to electronic prepress production, and we just recently
reduced the Congressional
Record page rate by 7 percent, primarily due to technology
improvements. Similar savings have
been achieved on other congressional products. As a result, for
the
past decade GPO has been
able to hold a relatively flat line on appropriations for
congressional
printing. Continued
technology upgrades, in addition to new technology approaches
where
appropriate, will continue
to provide Congress with the best information services possible.
The Senate's print-on-demand capability is a good example
of how
electronic technologies
have been used by GPO to satisfy a customer requirement for
localized
service. Two years ago, a
joint effort of the Secretary of the Senate, the Senate Sergeant
at Arms,
this Committee, the JCP,
and GPO was launched to provide a print-on-demand capability for
the
Senate Document Room.
An electronic printing system was provided by the Senate and
linked by
fiber optic cables to
GPO's automated prepress systems in the central office plant.
GPO
provides staff to operate the
system for the Senate.
The print-on-demand capability now permits copies of
bills,
resolutions, and other official
documents to be communicated electronically directly from
databases
resident at GPO to the
Documents Room, where the exact number of copies needed can be
produced on the spot. It
also makes possible a reduction in the volume of copies that are
originally printed at GPO,
reducing printing costs, and it also reduces the paper storage
and
inventory requirements for the
Documents Room.
Electronic Support for the Procurement Process
Electronic technology is also being used to improve the
printing
procurement process.
Electronic versions of printing procurement bid solicitations are
now
accessible from the Internet
via GPO's World Wide Web home page. We are currently posting
solicitations from the central
office and from a regional office in Hampton, VA, and we want to
expand
these postings to all
regional offices. We estimate that less than $1,500 in
programming was
spent developing the
system capability for making these solicitations available on
GPO's
home page. These costs were
absorbed by current staff and no out-of-pocket expenses were
incurred.
GPO did not need to undertake a large-scale effort to
develop a
system for electronically
posting copies of bid solicitations. We developed our World Wide
Web
page originally as part of
our mission to electronically disseminate Federal documents
mandated
by P.L. 103-40. To post
bid solicitations, we simply added another electronic link to a
printing
procurement web page
containing a list of currently available bid solicitations. A
user need
only click on the name of the
desired document to initiate a download of the full text of the
document.
The technical expertise,
as well as the computer hardware and software needed to
accomplish
this, was already in place.
The electronic posting of bid solicitations benefits the
Government
in several ways. First,
it allows the GPO to reduce the cost of making this information
available
to the public. The
estimated cost of preparing a typical multipaged bid solicitation
for the
web page is less than
$1.00 per document. This cost is expected to drop further,
because
once a GPO term contract or
other solicitation has been tagged it will not need to be tagged
again
when it is renewed.
Approximately 90 percent of all term contracts are renewed.
Making
paper copies of solicitations
available in response to walk-in and telephone requests is more
expensive, ranging from $1.13 to
$4.66.
Posting bid solicitations electronically also has the
benefit of
enabling more contractors to
bid on Government printing Jobs, thereby increasing competition
and
lowering procurement costs.
Printed versions of bid solicitations are available to potential
contractors
and the public free of
charge at any GPO bid room. However, only a limited number of
copies
are printed and, as a
practical matter, access is limited to those printers located
near GPO
facilities. Other potential
bidders therefore cannot gain ready access to bid opportunities
except
through reliance on
proprietary bid services. Thus, for the vast majority of GPO
contractors,
most of whom are small
businesses, the opportunities to review GPO bid solicitations are
limited.
By posting electronic versions of these documents on the
Internet,
all potential bidders,
even remotely located small businesses, will have immediate
access to
additional bid
opportunities. We have found that increasing the dissemination
of
formal bid solicitations results
in more contractors submitting bids. The increase in competition
also
results in a decrease in
contract prices, lowering the overall cost to the Government for
printing.
GPO's electronic posting initiative has generated
considerable
interest and enthusiasm in
the printing industry. It has been praised by the Printing
Industries of
America, Inc., and by the
GPO Contractors Coalition. In addition to the trade groups,
individual
printers have contacted
GPO, both in writing and electronically, to voice their support
for the
program.
It is clear that the Federal Government will begin to
rely more
heavily on electronic
commerce to meet its procurement needs. In October 1993,
Executive
Order No. 12,864 directed
the Federal Government to explore and use electronic commerce in
Federal procurement. This
was followed by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994
(P.L.
103-355), which mandated,
among other things, that the Federal Government begin using a
computer network to disseminate
solicitations in order to make Federal procurement more flexible,
responsive, and timely. GPO's
electronic posting of procurement solicitations is one way that
we are
using electronic commerce
measures, consistent with the intent of both Administration and
congressional efforts to streamline
the Federal procurement process.
We are also using electronic funds transfer to pay those
contractors who can receive
payments electronically, and we are currently developing a pilot
project
with the Defense Printing
Service to accept print orders filed electronically. In the
future, we
envision posting small
purchases on the Internet and receiving price quotations
electronically.
These and related developments can only be accomplished
through office automation
improvements in GPO's Printing Procurement Department. We
currently
have a request before
the JCP to equip our procurement offices with computers, servers,
and
software. This equipment
would end the Department's reliance on an obsolete
mainframe-based
system, reduce computer
and telecommunications costs, and improve communications
Department-wide and with customer
agencies and contractors. The capabilities of this system could
be used
to implement additional
electronic commerce initiatives that will increase competition,
improve
service, and lower the costs
of the Printing, Procurement Program.
OMB Draft Legislation
Recently, the Director of OMB transmitted to several
Members of
Congress proposed
legislation titled "The Electronic Depository Library Act of
1996." We
were provided with a copy
of the proposal and analyzed its provisions. Copies of our
analysis
were transmitted to the
Chairman and ranking Member of this Committee as well as other
Members of Congress.
Several key provisions of OMB's proposal contrast sharply
with
the legislative direction
suggested in the recently concluded study on the electronic
transition
of the FDLP. Although the
current FDLP includes information from all three branches of
Government, the OMB proposal
would apply to the executive branch only.
In addition, the OMB proposal would potentially
circumscribe the
type of information that
would be made available to depository libraries. It would
transfer policy
oversight for electronic
dissemination to depositories from the Superintendent of
Documents to
agency Chief Information
Officers (CIO's), who are accountable by law to OMB. It would
allow
agencies to make individual
arrangements with depository libraries to pay for fee-based
information
services operated by
agencies, and would set no limit on the fees, signaling a
dramatic
departure from the traditional
principle of making Government information available to
depositories
without charge. It would
effectively transform the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS)
of the Department of
Commerce--which has no depository distribution authority and
which
could provide no guarantee
of assuring equitable public access to any information it
disseminates
to depositories--into the
executive branch's depository of final resort. It would also
establish
NTIS as the centralized point
of access for executive branch information, in contrast to OMB's
objection to the "centralized
management model" currently operational in the FDLP. While the
OMB
proposal is purportedly
designed to improve depository access to electronic information,
the
enforcement mechanism it
provides would be weak and ineffectual.
The most prominent shortcoming of OMB's proposal lies in
the
provisions regarding the
dissemination of online services. Agency CIO's would make
direct,
individual arrangements with
depository libraries for access to online services "in some
suitable
electronic format." Online
services would be required to be listed in each agency's
information
locator service so that
libraries could find them.
This part of the bill seriously miscalculates the value
and utility to
the library community
of having a single entity in the Superintendent of Documents to
coordinate library-related
information dissemination activities. Currently, GPO deals with
hundreds of departments,
agencies, bureaus, and offices, represented by approximately
4,500
billing address codes. To deal
with a potentially vast number of online publishing entities in
an
increasingly distributed electronic
environment, each of approximately 1,400 depository libraries
would
assume an enormous
administrative burden without the presence of a central entity to
coordinate services, provide
notice of information availability, promote standards, develop
guidelines
on timeliness, and
suggest user-friendly interfaces.
Providing equitable dissemination to all libraries,
regardless of
differing equipment
capabilities in the library community, would be equally
burdensome to
agencies. The GPO
Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993 was enacted
in part to relieve agencies of
this burden by establishing a single online service that would
standardize service provision to all
depository libraries. Since it is unlikely that many agencies
would want
or be able to provide
differing levels of services, the result would be that only those
libraries
with the most
comprehensive electronic capabilities would be able to access
most
Federal online systems.
To support its legislative proposal OMB stated their
opinion that
"the centralized
management model of chapter 19 [of Title 44, U.S.C.] is not
appropriate
for distributed electronic
information products and services." However, this is not the
conclusion
that was reached by the
broad spectrum of participants in the FDLP study. The study
confirmed
the value of a central
entity to assist libraries and the public in accessing electronic
Government information in a
distributed environment. Statutory improvements identified by
the study
could be attained
through legislative revisions that would be less sweeping than
those
proposed by OMB, less
burdensome on agencies, depository libraries, information users,
and
the taxpayers, and less
damaging to the comprehensive and equitable system of access to
Government information
provided through the depository library program today.
Proposals for Change to Title 44
Need for Updating
I think the basic structure of Title 44 is sound, but I
agree that
certain parts of the statutes
need updating. For example, it no longer seems necessary in the
Information Age to require the
Public Printer to be "a practical printer, versed in the art of
bookbinding," and references to
technology such as stereotype plates have long since grown
antiquated.
Many observers have
suggested changing the name of the Government Printing Office to
something more descriptive of
GPO's modern information reproduction and dissemination
functions.
Those provisions and
others like them clearly need to be updated.
Also in need of change are provisions that would improve
our
capability to manage our
sales program effectively. For example, we are not permitted to
offer
volume discounts of more
than 25 percent, although the industry standard is 40 percent.
Greater
flexibility in managing this
program could reduce costs and prices and improve dissemination
to
the public. However, we do
not seek authority to "publish" Government information, as some
observers have suggested.
Reform of Funding Mechanism
Another possible change is reform of GPO's funding
mechanism.
Outside of the small
annual appropriation we receive for the Superintendent of
Document's
depository library,
cataloging and indexing, by-law distribution, and international
exchange
programs, we are
required by section 309 to recover all of our costs from the
prices we
set for our work, including
costs for a number of functions that do not contribute to
production and
distribution but which
every Federal agency is required to perform. Our printing rates
must
recover costs for our
Inspector General's office, budgeting and accounting, personnel,
equal
employment opportunity,
health and safety, security, data systems, and so on. Recovering
these
expenses increases the
prices of GPO's products and services. Most agencies receive an
annual salaries and expenses
appropriation to cover these costs. With an appropriation to GPO
for
general administrative
expenses, the costs charged to Congress and agencies for printing
and
related products would
decrease.
Changes to Facilitate FDLP Transition
The recent study on the transition to a more electronic
FDLP
contained several
suggestions for change to chapter 19 of Title 44 to facilitate
that
transition. The suggestions,
which are currently under review by the library community, would
provide explicit statutory
recognition of GPO's FDLP role and responsibilities in the
Information
Age.
Transfer of JCP Authorities
Transferring certain JCP authorities to the Public
Printer would
address constitutional
concerns about the role of the JCP. However, I also recognize
that the
JCP performs a valuable
function for GPO as a referee over the printing, priorities of
the two
Houses of Congress, and in
providing policy oversight for printing and information
dissemination
issues, and I would not
recommend its abolition altogether.
Oversight of Agency In-plant Capabilities
Congress needs to review the operation of printing plants
in
Federal agencies. While
some of the work done in these plants is justified (e.g., work
for the
Central Intelligence Agency,
Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency,
and
short run work for limited
internal administrative purposes only, which was the reason the
plants
were originally
established), much of it could be procured far less expensively.
Over
the past 15 years, there
have been a number of studies that compared the cost of
performing
procurable printing in
agency plants with the cost of purchasing it through GPO. Most
have
concluded that it is far less
expensive to procure through GPO. Also, printing procured
through
GPO is automatically eligible
for dissemination to the public through the FDLP and sales
programs.
A review of agency plants
that results in ensuring that they are limited to the performance
of
internal administrative printing
that is outside the requirements for public distribution
contained in the
FDLP provisions of Title 44
would reduce the cost of Federal printing and improve public
access to
Government information
through established dissemination programs.
Congressional Review of Other Authorities
As part of the effort to change Title 44, Congress needs
to
examine the authorities of other
agencies to perform printing and dissemination functions that are
being
used to conflict with those
that GPO is required to perform.
During the conduct of the recent study concerning the
electronic
transition of the FDLP,
the Congressional Research Study compiled the various statutes
authorizing the dissemination of
Government information to the public. Approximately 400 statutes
were
identified, although only
a handful are of real significance to GPO in terms of conflicting
authorities. Most appear to be
requirements to produce and/or disseminate information related to
specific program authorities, a
feature of law that became common in the 1960's and 1970's with
the
unwritten assumption that
statutory information functions would be carried out in
accordance with
Title 44. The statutes that
are being used to conflict with GPO's responsibilities are those
governing the operations of the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) of the Department
of
Commerce, those that
authorize the Federal prisons to perform Government printing
(Federal
Prison Industries, or
UNICOR), and laws that authorize printing for other Federal
agencies by
the General Services
Administration (GSA).
In each of these cases, statutes were originally enacted
for sound
but limited public policy
purposes--to provide for the dissemination of scientific and
technical
information resulting from
Federal research to American business (NTIS), the use of Federal
prisoners to perform labor
intensive work to keep them occupied (UNICOR), and the
performance
of administrative printing
as a centrally-located service for Federal agencies physically
located
together in the field (GSA).
However, in recent years operations conducted under these
authorities
have been expanded
beyond their original intent to conflict directly with GPO's
statutory
mission.
NTIS is using its authority to establish printing and
dissemination
arrangements for a wide
range of information products, resulting in copyright or
copyright-like
restrictions on the
information that was originally generated at taxpayer expense.
UNICOR
has invested in long-run
printing equipment as a revenue-generating measure, equipment
that
paradoxically leads to idle
rather than busy prison labor. GSA has established
cross-servicing
arrangements for its printing
and duplicating plants to assist agencies in some cases with a
wide
variety of printing, expanding
beyond its original central administrative service unit (CASU)
authority.
These operations remove work from the GPO procurement
stream
and frequently result in
decreased public access when the publications are not made
available
to the Superintendent of
Documents for dissemination. Congress needs to review the
operation
of these authorities to
ensure that they are staying within the original legislative
intent. That
would be a major
contribution to reform of the printing statutes.
Financial Condition
Apart from the potential revision of GPO's funding
mechanism, a
major revision of the law
is not necessary to address the financial situation at GPO. As
you
know, GPO has experienced a
series of year-end financial losses since 1991, due principally
to
declining revenues. The losses
were funded out of retained earnings in GPO's revolving fund and
did
not require additional
funding from Congress. Revenue declines have been the result of
less
work coming in, due
primarily to budget cuts in the agencies but also to the
increasing use
of electronics and the
production of work by agency plants. They were also the result
of a
printing rate structure at
GPO that remained unchanged from January 1990 until Just
recently,
when we worked with the
JCP to establish a pricing structure that fully recovers costs.
In response to this situation, GPO has moved to reduce
expenses.
Since I took office in
1993, we have reduced personnel levels by more than 1,000,
generating
an estimated savings of
$50 million, and total employment at GPO is now lower than at any
time
in the post World War II
period. In fiscal 1995, we reduced the loss by year end to $3
million on
$852.6 million in
revenues, for a margin of less than one-half of one percent.
However,
due to continuing
decreases in workload, resulting in part from two Government
shutdowns and several snow days,
combined losses were $17 million through May 1996.
We will continue to downsize and adjust operations to
meet
workload levels. The House
of Representatives has directed us to reduce to 3,600 full-time
equivalent (FTE) work years by the
end of fiscal year 1997, and we will achieve that goal. Other
cost-saving
and downsizing actions
can also be taken within the context of current law. Apart from
a
revision that would permit us to
fund general administrative expenses from appropriated funds,
Title 44
provides GPO with
sufficient financial tools to meet the current situation.
Beyond these measures, I think Title 44 is a good set of
laws for
ensuring economy in
printing and for providing comprehensive and equitable public
access
to Government information.
With some changes, it would be broad enough and flexible enough
to
accommodate the transition
to new information technologies, and it currently is sufficient
to permit
adjustment to reduced
printing workloads. Focused adjustments to Title 44, in
combination
with congressional review of
other authorities and continued downsizing and technological
transition
at GPO, would provide a
realistic and achievable program for improving operations without
endangering the ability to
generate economies in Government printing and ensure public
access.
|
A service of the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. Questions or comments: asklps@gpo.gov. | |||
Last updated: April 26, 2002 Page Name: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/adnotes/ad081596.html | |||
[ GPO Home ] | [ GPO Access Home ] | [ FDLP Desktop Home ] | [ Top ] |