May 18, 2000
I am writing as Chairperson of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) to you as a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. NCLIS is charged by Public Law 91-345 to advise the President and the Congress on the adequacy of library and information services for meeting the needs of the people of the United States in order "to achieve national goals and to utilize most effectively the nation's educational resources."
As you know, a provision of the House FY 2001 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill recently approved by the House Appropriations Committee which I believe is extremely unwise. The House provision to which I refer makes a 25% cut in Government Printing Office spending authority, a large proportion of which is directed to cutting the operations of the Federal Depository Library Program which is administered by the GPO.
I recognize that the full House has not yet voted on its own bill, but I am told the Senate is marking up its counterpart bill later today. I understand that the Senate bill includes $30.2 million for the salaries and expenses of the Superintendent of Documents, and I urge you to support that amount in the bill that you report this afternoon.
With little fanfare, the GPO, through the vehicle of the Federal Depository Library Program, has distributed copies of federal documents for over 100 years to designated libraries throughout the nation. The law authorizes at least two libraries per Congressional district, and these libraries regularly receive thousands of federal government documents, agree to safeguard them, make them widely available, and help citizens find and use them. Without needing to travel far from their homes, or pay exorbitant copying charges, citizens are thus informed of their government's workings, and can use this government information for an infinite variety of personal and business purposes.
At the House Appropriations Committee mark-up, this proposed GPO cut received only the briefest consideration, but it was noted by one of the Committee members that electronic versions of government documents could easily supplant the printed copies that would be discontinued. Some day that assertion may become true, but it is not yet the case. There are still numerous technological and other barriers that must be overcome.
NCLIS recently completed a nine-month study of a cross-section of 314 specific government information products, currently distributed to the Depository Libraries in order to measure the changes and trends in agency practices as they increasingly migrate such products from more conventional ink-on-paper and microform formats to the Internet or other online modes. Twenty-four different agencies in all three branches of government participated. The Commission found that the absence of a single, high-level focal point within the agencies to coordinate this transition from print to electronic formats and mediums (much less the government as a whole) was seriously hampering Federal electronic publishing initiatives. A copy of our report is enclosed.
Additionally, the Commission just completed in March an assessment of the issues and problems involved in the proposed transfer of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) from the Department of Commerce to the Library of Commerce. As you may know, that agency is charged by law with making available to the public all of the scientific and technical reports produced by government R&D contractors, the $80 billion total annual work product of which has been financed by taxpayers. But, once again, the fundamental challenge in this area as well, is the critical need to modernize the government's public information dissemination policies and practices, which are rooted largely in an ink-on-paper era. I am also enclosing a copy of our NTIS report.
Moreover, even if - as was contended at the House mark-up session - every government publication were available electronically to the public, users still want or need print copies. If depository libraries cannot obtain printed documents conveniently from a central source, they must reproduce the documents themselves locally. But unit costs for local reproduction would far exceed what is achieved by centralized printing, such as that which is procured from or produced by the GPO. The burden of printing would fall like an unfunded mandate on the participating libraries, and likely discourage them from continuing to participate in the Program
The Commission is about to launch a study of much-needed reforms in the Federal Government's outdated public information dissemination laws, policies, and programs. This investigation will be completed by mid-December. Based on the study's findings, it is our hope that the new President and Congress can make the necessary statutory, policy, programmatic, organizational, and budgetary changes to bring them into the modern electronic information era.
Policy issues affecting the dissemination of government information to the public, including the changing role of the depository libraries, as we transition into an increasingly electronic environment, are complex and difficult to sort out. The many issues and concerns involved are closely inter-related and virtually inseparable. For example, the challenges of:
I have purposefully refrained from addressing all of these complex details in this letter. Right now I urge the Senate to refrain from proposing cuts in the GPO budget as recommended by the House, and wait until the Commission can complete the aforementioned study and present its findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the President and the Congress.
In summary, the costs transferred to the Depository Libraries and their patrons, as well as the unknown impact on our economy if citizens are unable to find or use government information effectively, has a price tag that substantially exceeds the amount saved by the House proposal.
Sincerely yours,
/signed/
Martha B. Gould
Chairperson
Enclosures