Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Joan Challinor and it is my privilege to be a member of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. President Clinton appointed me in 1995 and I am delighted to find myself a part of a group of committed, involved Commissioners. The first concern of members of the Commission is the library and information needs of the people of this nation, and the second concern is translating those needs into policy recommendations to the Congress and the President. That is exactly the responsibility Congress assigned the Commission when it created it in 1971.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss with you the issue of closing NTIS, the National Technical Information Service. We have submitted written testimony, and I request that it be included in the record of this hearing. I will address some of the points in the written testimony in a moment, but first I would like to share some personal thoughts on the weighty issues facing Congress as it deals with the Department of Commerce's proposal to close NTIS.

I am an historian, and for forty-five years I have been married to a scientist. This combination of disciplines gives me a unique perspective on some of the issues involved in the NTIS proposal. I certainly understand the relationship between science and communication and the value of prior research. In 1676, Sir Isaac Newton credited his success, in part, to the work of his predecessors: "If I have seen further," he wrote to a colleague, "it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

I also understand the need for communicating prior research to future scientists. As an historian, I recognize that this communication must occur over decades, perhaps centuries. While I do not plan to make specific comments about the NTIS proposal today, I can tell you that I was slightly shocked to see the draft legislation and its requirement that agencies maintain access to their scientific, technical or engineering information for not less than three years.

In our written testimony, we make three major points. First, the Commission, or NCLIS, as part of its broad mandate, has long been concerned with issues affecting government information programs. We undertook a significant study in the early 1980's dealing with appropriate roles for the public and private sector in distributing government information and, I hasten to point out, the principles developed in that study would be worth reviewing in the context of the current NTIS proposal.

Most recently, however, we have concluded a survey of government agency practices as information dissemination moves from a mostly ink-on-paper world to a system of electronic distribution. (This study was undertaken at the request of the Government Printing Office and was funded with the approval of Congress's Joint Committee on Printing. A copy of the report, "Assessment of Government Information Products," has been provided to the subcommittee.) We discovered an across-the-board lack of government information policy to guide electronic publishing. We saw that there was no uniform understanding of the concept of permanent public access to government information. And we noticed a clear lack of coordination of publishing initiatives at all levels, even within agencies. At the same time, and this is the good news, we saw agencies making significant strides in using modern information technologies to expand broadly the quantity and quality of information made available to the citizens of this country.

Our second point is that the issues faced by the proposed organizational changes for NTIS closely correlate with the issues discovered in our recent survey. Accordingly, Congress should recognize that it will be making decisions that are far more consequential than a simple governmental reorganization that shifts boxes on an organization chart. We are facing an opportunity to write anew the basic policy for creation, use, storage, distribution, and long-term disposition of one of the most valuable resources - perhaps the most important -- in the possession of the government: information. While we are sympathetic to the pressures felt by the Commerce Department to accelerate the resolution of its perceived problems with NTIS, we urge Congress to address these issues in a thoughtful and deliberate manner, even if that means a slower pace than the Commerce Department might wish.

Here I should mention my personal concern about "unintended consequences." In my study of history, I have been fascinated with the number of promising proposals that when enacted lead to less than desirable outcomes. Indeed, the requirement that Congress imposed on NTIS that it be self-funding led to the unintended consequences of expanded entrepreneurial activities in the hope that revenue from the new activities would cover the costs of the original basic functions. It would be well for Congress to keep in mind this all too common problem while it decides the next steps for NTIS. While nobody has a crystal ball for the future, it nevertheless remains possible to conceptualize a range of consequences for each policy proposal and thus take steps to minimize unintended consequences.

Our third point is to offer the assistance of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. When the House of Representatives held hearings on closing NTIS, a number of witnesses proposed that a formal study of the issues take place before Congress took any action affecting the future of NTIS. We respectfully suggest that NCLIS is the appropriate mechanism for undertaking this study. In fact, our statutory charter clearly envisions this role. Indeed, it was because of this role, and the independent point of view we can provide, that GPO selected us to perform the study I mentioned earlier. In three to six months, NCLIS could review the historical record of NTIS, invite comment from a broad range of affected constituencies, and bring together a panel of experts to develop a cohesive, consensual approach to the proposal. NCLIS could then provide Congress with the policy advice needed to take wise action.

Even before the thirteen colonies became the United States, our science commanded the attention of remarkable citizens. Benjamin Franklin (who, I can't fail to point out, started the first lending library in the colonies) became deputy postmaster of Philadelphia and was later appointed postmaster general by the Second Continental Congress; he sent journals and scientific information free of charge to scientists in the colonies with whom he corresponded regularly. As the foremost American scientist of his time, he knew that only by the widespread dissemination of information could science flourish.

This subcommittee, and Congress itself, are now being asked to make decisions that will also have an effect on whether science flourishes. Today's hearing is evidence of the seriousness with which you address this issue. I want to thank you for allowing NCLIS to be a part of today's hearing, and look forward to the Commission's continued involvement with you on this issue. At this point, I would be glad to respond to any questions from members of the subcommittee. Thank you.