The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As the Chairperson of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, I am writing to you to appeal a decision that has been made in your name that I believe is inconsistent with your views and personal history.

• You have clearly and strongly articulated your commitment to improving education in this nation and your desire “to leave no child behind.”
• The First Lady’s professional career personifies the nexus between education and libraries.
• Your family’s support for libraries, literacy and the Commission extends over many years.

I am bringing this small but important matter to your personal attention because I believe it necessary to do so. The proposed budget for the Commission is only $3 million, an amount far less than would typically concern you; in FY 2002, the federal government will spend $3 million in 49 seconds. However, for us, $3 million is very significant. The Commission takes very seriously its responsibility to use effectively the public money entrusted to us. When my predecessor, the late Jeanne Hurley Simon, testified at our last appropriations hearing, the subcommittee chairman, John Porter of Illinois, used the word “amazing” to describe all we were able to accomplish with our modest budget.

Three decades earlier, on April 20, 1970, the value of the Commission was being debated on the floor of the House of Representatives. John Brademas of Indiana was the principal sponsor of a bill to establish the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. (The companion bill in the Senate was introduced by Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough.) Mr. Brademas acknowledged the “small cost,” but he anticipated savings “many, many times” greater as the advice of the Commission was factored into other federal legislation dealing with libraries. He also predicted that the Commission’s work would be “of inestimable worth to the magnificent system” of libraries at all levels—local, state and national—and of all types.

A few moments later, the bill introduced by Mr. Brademas and reported unanimously out of the House Education and Labor Committee, was approved overwhelmingly by a vote of 261 to 11. Your father, along with every other member of the Texas delegation present that day, as well as another future president, Gerald Ford, cast their votes in favor of establishing the new, independent agency. Congress assigned to this agency the “primary responsibility” for library and information policy, and made it unmistakably clear that the Commission represented the people. Its recommendations, in the words of Representative Patsy Mink of Hawaii, were to be “free of undue pressure from any source.”

Three months later, after minor differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill were reconciled, President Richard Nixon, signed the bill. In so doing, he acknowledged that the task given to the Commission was “a crucial one, for the continuing health and enrichment of our Nation,” Within a year, President Nixon had appointed a distinguished group of academics, technologists and library professionals to begin the wide-ranging work of the Commission; these part-time members met in twelve day-long sessions the first year.

Congress showed amazing prescience in establishing the Commission. It is important to remember that 1970 was before the term “information age” found its way into our every-day vocabulary. Nonetheless, the Congress recognized that library and information services were important to the attainment of national goals and to the effective use of the nation’s educational resources. It expected the Commission to come to grips with emerging information issues and to provide useful policy recommendations to both the President and Congress, and also to state, local and private agencies as well.

For the past thirty years, the Commission has responded to its Congressional directive.

• We have collected and published statistics essential to understanding the effectiveness of library and information services.
• We have helped shape legislation dealing with federal support for libraries.
• We have brought together opposing groups concerned with library photocopying and helped develop a consensus approach to be included in copyright legislation.
• We helped write rules of the road to guide the public sector and the private sector as they each work to make information created by the government more useful and accessible to the people who paid for its creation.
• We have examined the library and information needs of special constituencies such as children, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, and Native Americans.

Twice the Commission has been called on to support large national meetings to marshal the American people’s interests and concerns. A White House Conference on Library and Information Services was first held in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter. Your father called the second conference in 1991. Both the President and Barbara Bush spoke to the delegates who greeted them warmly and with great enthusiasm. The following year, your father transmitted to the Congress the Report of the White House Conference on Library and Information Services containing policy recommendations. He commended the Commission “for its key role in making the Conference a success,” and he concluded his letter with these stirring words.

As we strive for a more literate citizenry, increased productivity, and stronger democracy, we must make certain that our libraries and information services will be there to assist us as we lead the revolution for education reform. As I stated in my speech at the White House Conference, “Libraries and information services stand at the center of this revolution.”

In the time between the White House Conference and the transmittal of its recommendations, your father again focused on the needs of the Commission. In August, 1991, President Bush approved legislation that adjusted the length of service of Commissioners, directed the Commission to address international as well as national library and information issues, and lifted the appropriations cap that had been written into the Commission’s law when it was first enacted. It should be noted, however, that the $3 million we seek for FY 2002 still represents a purchasing capability that in real dollars is below the $750,000 authorized in 1970.

In the past few years, the Commission has built on its history. I described some of our activities in a letter I sent to your wife last month. I wanted her to know how proud we were that a fellow librarian was now First Lady and, of course, I wanted her to consider getting involved with the work of the Commission. I wrote about the following recent activities: The Commission held hearings on the nettlesome issue of children’s access to pornography and other inappropriate material on the Internet and called for strong local controls to deal with this problem.

• The Commission produced a comprehensive assessment of government information dissemination. Recognizing that information created by government belongs to all the people, we proposed a number of recommendations to assure effective use, dissemination and permanent public availability of what we identified as a strategic national resource.
• The Commission continues to coordinate statistical activities to measure the role of all types of libraries in our nation. Notably, it was our efforts that monitored the availability of Internet services to patrons in public libraries, which grew from 10% in 1994 to 95% in 2000.
• In 1999 the Commission inaugurated a Sister Library program, which paired libraries throughout the United States with counterparts around the globe and focused principally on children-to-children activities. A significant number of the participating libraries are school libraries.

I hope that you are beginning to see, as did Chairman John Porter, that the work of the Commission might be called “amazing” in light of the small budget we receive. Our full-time staff is less than ten, but because of our standing in the community we can often count on the volunteer help of many others (our government information dissemination study, mentioned earlier, benefited from the contributions of more than 100 people). I hope you will agree that our work is work that needs to be continued.

I don’t want to conclude this appeal without candidly addressing one last matter. While we can fairly characterize $3 million as a small amount by federal budget standards, it does include a significant increase over our current level of $1.5 million. This increase is sought to allow the Commission to begin addressing two policy issues that are very much central to the development of library and information services. However, without adequate resources (principally knowledgeable policy analysts with adequate budgets to bring together experts in the field), the Commission will be unable to perform the critical function Congress had in mind when it established the Commission in 1970.

The two issues are intellectual property protection and provision of universal enhanced telecommunications services.

• There is a tension between creators and users of intellectual property, and libraries frequently find themselves at the center of the dispute. The current developments regarding the “sharing” of copyrighted works using the Napster service is only the latest manifestation of this issue, but it is an issue that becomes exceedingly more complex as technology leads to making copies that are perfect, cheap, and instantly distributable to a worldwide population. In its very first annual report, the Commission described its involvement in copyright issues, but over the years, we have lessened our activity in this vital area. It is time to get involved again.
• Since 1934, national policy has recognized that universal access to the telephone network provided value not only to each additional person who was added to the network, but to all users of the network. This same principle—but applied to data networks—was embraced by Congress when it updated national communications laws in 1996. The universal services fund established at that time has provided the resources to provide Internet connectivity to schools, libraries and health clinics in all parts of the Nation. It was research performed by the Commission in 1994, reporting on the woefully inadequate provision of Internet access in public libraries that prompted Congressional action to establish the universal services fund. It is now time to take stock of that program and determine next steps. The Commission is the proper agency to undertake this work and will be able to do so if funded at the requested level in FY2002.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share these thoughts with you. I sincerely hope you will reverse the initial decision made to reduce our funds to nothing, and instead request that Congress appropriate $3 million for the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. We believe there continues to be strong support for the Commission on Capitol Hill and that your request would be honored. We also remember that when earlier budget proposals recommended terminating the Commission, it was the Congress who restored funding and encouraged us to continue our statutory mandate to serve both the President and the Congress.

As I already indicated, this matter is small compared to all the other issues facing you, and I have endeavored to keep this appeal as short as I could. Nevertheless, if you wish us to provide you more detailed information on the Commission’s efforts and plans, I would be glad to do so.

You have my warmest best wishes.

Respectfully,

Martha B. Gould
Chairperson

cc: Vice President Richard B. Cheney
Chair, Budget Review Board
Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.
Director, Office of Management and Budget