Question 1: In working to produce the report on "Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products," did your participants include both librarians and technologists at the different federal entities?

Response: Yes, survey respondents, other survey interviewees, and the special advisory group established by the Commission to help plan the study included a wide variety of different federal agency personnel and offices, including: librarians; records and archival officers; information system and technology staffs; public affairs officials; web and media specialists; management analysts; technical information personnel; chief information officers; publishing and printing officials; program managers; and others. Several library and information science professors and former high-level government information policy experts served on the study's advisory group and were also interviewed in-depth. All three branches of Government were involved, and representatives of the Federal Depository Library Program, a key constituency group of the study, participated in the study's design and periodically reviewed progress and offered advice, as did various federal interagency and public interest groups. In short, the survey consciously solicited a wide variety of viewpoints and perspectives, and therefore its conclusions and findings, to the best of our knowledge, are not unduly biased or weighted in favor of any particular "vested interests." Indeed, sometimes a difference of opinion was expressed in response to the same interview question depending on the respondent's particular perspective of the issues and problems.

Question 2: Do you agree that the resolution to NTIS should be a part of a larger initiative to address overall policy on the electronic publication and dissemination of government information? Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for such a policy?

Response: Yes, NCLIS strongly believes that the "resolution of NTIS" challenge should not be dealt with in a disconnected, piecemeal fashion. Rather, the matter should be part of a broader investigation that "lays out the record" in a public manner after carefully considering:

1. the viewpoints and stakes of the many players involved - - the Congress, the President and OMB, agency chief information officers, major federal information dissemination agencies such as the Government Printing Office and the Library of Congress, agency program divisions, agency functional offices such as publishing and webmaster offices, citizens, businesses, state and local levels of government, interagency committees, public information users groups, consumer interest groups, the media, historians, scientists and scientific and technical information officials, federal depository librarians, and others;
2. federal public information dissemination and electronic publishing laws, rules, regulations, policies, programs, and practices;
3. a selected sample of interagency and agency level implementing procedures (e.g. agency web guidelines and traditional as well as electronic publishing procedures);
4. existing organizational missions and authorities of the various federal entities with public information dissemination and electronic publishing responsibilities;
5. changing citizen needs for, and ways of identifying, obtaining, and using government information in the Information Age (both traditional ink-on-paper and electronic); and
6. other factors.

In its above-mentioned study report, NCLIS documented at the top, middle and lower agency levels both (1) a lack of awareness and understanding of many of the current laws that touch on public information dissemination and electronic publishing, as well as (2) considerable confusion, overlap, duplication, inconsistencies and gaps among and between the applicable federal laws, authorities, policies, programs and so on. For example, surprisingly, there is no statutory provision that defines permanent public access, and yet that information management concept is crucial to the orderly migration of traditional (pre-electronic) information products to the web, minimizing federal information losses due to fugitive materials, and guaranteeing the preservation of the federal record for historical, archival, socio-cultural and other reasons.

NCLIS does have some preliminary ideas as to how this fragmentation of guidance and responsibility at the government-wide, branch and agency levels can be significantly reduced. The Commission also has some views as to how the many dispersed and compartmentalized dissemination and publishing authorities could be consolidated, simplified and streamlined. However, the Commission believes the appropriate course of action is to undertake a 3-6 month investigation as recommended in our prepared testimony to the Committee. Only after that investigation considers the viewpoints of the many players involved would the pros and cons of alternative scenarios and strategies be formulated for the Congress to consider.

The Commission also believes that while it has the statutory authority to initiate such an investigation, it would be very helpful if a mandate were given to us by Congress (just as it was by the Joint Committee on Printing in the case of the just-completed study) in order to maximize the prospects for soliciting greater agency cooperation, attracting keener public interest and support, and securing more focused media and public interest group attention.

Question 3: Regardless of the resolution for which agency has the mandate to publish government scientific literature, do any of you have recommendations for dealing with the issue that agencies are not submitting documents as required by law?

Response: NCLIS believes that what needs to be done first and foremost is to educate and train agency officials in order to enlighten them as to the relevant statutes and regulations - -and enforce current laws. For example, there is a provision in The Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1995, Section 3506(d) that says:

"with respect to information dissemination, each agency shall provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products"

Some agency officials were aware of this provision, but most were not, or were confused as to how it related to other legislation. Beyond the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1995, which is a part of Chapter 35 of Title 44 of the USC, other provisions of Title 44, such as those that pertain to the authorities and responsibilities of the Public Printer, the Government Printing Office and the Federal Depository Library Program (in particular Chapters 2, 5, 17, 19), and the National Archives and Records Administration and agency records programs (in particular Chapters 21 and 31), and other legislation such as the Information Technology Management Reform Act, and the American Technology Pre-eminence Act all have a bearing on agency requirements for submitting agency documents and information to NTIS, NARA and the FDLP.

But NCLIS found that neither federal nor agency level web guidelines, nor other information dissemination guidance policies and procedures, adequately implement the provisions of these many laws. As a consequence, government information products "appear and disappear" oftentimes with very little, or even without any warning whatsoever, whether products are intended for internal agency personnel or for external public audiences. Nor do federal publishing guidelines and standards bring together in one place the many considerations relating to alternative information formats, mediums, standards and dissemination practices.

In sum, the answer to this question also underscores the need for a sound, official government definition for the concept of "permanent public access." That concept is closely related to, but is distinguishable from a similar information retention requirement - - "permanent records retention," which is embodied in Federal records legislation. Currently, agencies are floundering in the absence of authoritative guidance and many agencies (if not most) assume that the two concepts are synonymous. Consequently, agencies are interpreting information retention requirements in a very confusing, inconsistent, and inadequate manner.

The investigation we are proposing would squarely address the critical need for uniform and practical guidance in the area of information retention, and sorting out closely related concepts including the two mentioned in the preceding paragraph plus two very important and closely related additional areas: authentication and preservation of information materials. There is also a need for a consistent definition of just what is government information. NCLIS has already drafted for review several "white papers" in these areas.

In the Foreword to the Office of Technology Assessment's report "Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information,"(July 1990), the statement is made:

"Global change is a fact of contemporary life - - whether in the political, economic, or technological spheres. U.S. leadership in all of these areas is being challenged. We need to take actions that can help renew the U.S. competitive edge in the worldwide marketplace of ideas, products, and services, and to provide leadership on global issues such as the environment. A key area of U.S. strength could and should be our scientific and technical information. The U.S. Government is the largest single source of STI in the world - - ranging from technical reports on aerospace propulsion and solar thermal electronic systems to satellite data on oceanic and atmospheric trends to bibliographic indices on medical and agricultural research. Ye the U.S. is not taking full advantage of opportunities to use Federal STI as part of a strategy to renew the U.S. competitive edge. STI is very important to scientists and engineers in a wide range of research, development, and commercial activities. They spend a lot of time on STI - - time that is valued, conservatively, at several billions of dollars per year just for federally funded researchers. When used efficiently, Federal STI pays off handsomely."

In summary, NCLIS believes the core issue at stake in the NTIS transfer is not the sorting out of Federal agency organizational boxes or benefit: cost equations, although they certainly must be addressed, but, rather, a carefully considered, fresh assessment of how to strengthen the value of Government information as a strategic national social and economic resource to America and individual Americans in the emerging Information Age.

The Commission would welcome an opportunity to meet with Committee members and/or staff as early as practicable to discuss our proposal for undertaking a study which explicitly addresses not only the specific questions raised by the Secretary of Commerce's proposed transfer of NTIS authorities, functions, and collections, but the broader questions of how to strengthen government-wide public information dissemination and electronic publishing policies, organizational missions and authorities, and related matters as well. We will be contacting you shortly for that purpose.