Hot Topics: Access to Government Information Budget Cuts A Letter from Public Printer Michael F. DiMario to the U.S. House and U.S. Senate Conferees Daniel J. Evans Library, Government Documents/Maps Mailstop L-2300, Olympia, Washington, 98505 phone: (360) 867-6251, fax: (360) 866-6790

The Public Printer sent this letter today to the potential conferees on the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill:

June 30, 2000

The Honorable Robert F. Bennett Chairman
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. Senate
Room S-125, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing to urge you and the other potential conferees on the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill for FY 2001 to agree to the funding levels for GPO's Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation and Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents that were recommended by the Senate in S. 2603, and to include language in the conference report addressing particular provisions of H.R. 4516 affecting GPO that I consider to be highly problematic. Specifically, I urge you to clarify the continued operation of GPO's International Exchange Program, and to disagree with the House proposals to terminate GPO's By-Law Distribution, transfer GPO's Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation to the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate, and study the transfer of Superintendent of Documents operations to the Library of Congress. Finally, I urge you to reconsider our request for essential funding for air conditioning in light of a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) review of GPO's energy needs.

Funding Levels. The appropriations for GPO recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee would provide a .4 percent increase over the current year's funding levels, which are $73.3 million for Congressional Printing and Binding and $29.9 million for Salaries and Expenses of the Superintendent of Documents. The House voted to reduce the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation to $69.6 million and the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation to $25.7 million. These amounts in the aggregate represent a cut of $7.9 million, or nearly 8%, from GPO's current funding. If they become law, they will require several significant changes in program operations, including reductions in employee numbers through attrition or other measures if necessary. I urge the conferees to agree with the level of funding recommended by the Senate.

Under the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation as approved by the House, funding would be cut for Senator's copies of the permanent Congressional Record and copies of the daily Record for the public agencies and institutions they designate; the Congressional Record Index and all 13 Indexers; blank paper and ink; all GPO details to Congress; the congressional serial sets; the printing of the U.S. Code; all numbered documents (including Our Flag, the pocket Constitution, Our American Government, How Our Laws Are Made, the Capitol Magazine, and other numbered documents such as the quarterly Statements of Disbursements of the House and the semiannual Report of the Secretary of the Senate); and other products and services.

Under the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation as approved by the House, funding would be cut for the distribution in tangible format of approximately 15,000 titles for which both online and tangible formats are available to depository libraries. This dual distribution continues to be required for the time being. The official version of some publications such as the U.S. Code and Supreme Court decisions is the printed version, not the online version. Also, we are advised by depository libraries that many online documents are often difficult to read/use or are time-consuming and expensive to download (i.e., lengthy government reports, the Congressional Record), or have greater research utility (for example, the CD-ROM version of Census 2000 data). In addition, longevity and permanent access to date are still better assured with the print version of many key government publications. We are gradually transitioning these titles to an online-only availability as their official versions in electronic format become available, easy and efficient to use, and permanently accessible. For example, we recently announced that beginning with the 107th Congress, congressional bills will be available only online and not in both microfiche and online formats. But dual format distribution for other publications is still required. The House funding level, however, would compel us to immediately discontinue distributing tangible copies of these titles, an action that I strongly do not recommend.

House Report Requirements. In addition to the funding levels recommended by the Senate, I urge you to include language in the conference report addressing issues raised in the House report that could be highly problematic for GPO.

The House report on H.R. 4516 also removed all funding for "distributing paper and other tangible media-based copies of government publications to the Federal depository libraries and to international exchange recipients" (H. Rpt. 106-635, p. 27; emphasis added). The managers' amendment to the bill restored "all funding for the Depository Libraries to receive the 25,000 Federal publications that are only available in paper and other tangible formats" (Congressional Record, June 22, 2000, p. H4945). From this language, it is unclear whether funding was specifically restored for the operation of the International Exchange Program. Under international treaty, this program pays for the distribution of U.S. Government publications to 71 foreign governments that agree, as indicated by the Library of Congress, to send to the Library similar publications of their governments. This distribution involves tangible products. Without providing copies of publications for international exchange, the Library is not likely to receive copies of publications from foreign governments. I urge you to clarify that the International Exchange Program will continue to operate.

The House report on H.R. 4516 also specifically terminated the operation of GPO's By-Law Distribution Program (H. Rpt. 106-635, p. 27). The managers' amendment to H.R. 4516 did not undo that action. The By-Law Distribution Program provides for the distribution of certain publications specified by public law at the request of Members of Congress and Federal agencies. Agencies that receive statutory copies of publications under this program include the Library of Congress and the National Archives. I urge you to disagree with the termination of this program.

I also urge the conferees to disagree with the requirement of H.R. 4516 and the accompanying report to transfer the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation to the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate in FY 2003. Under this proposal, it is not clear how joint information products, such as publications ordered pursuant to joint resolutions, would be funded between the two bodies. Similarly, it is not clear whether GPO would remain the Congress' source of printing and electronic information product services under this proposal, or to what degree Congress itself will experience increased costs and administrative burdens from the assumption of this new responsibility. Congress created GPO's Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation to address all of these issues. I strongly recommend that the conferees disagree with this potentially unwieldy and costly transfer proposal.

Similarly, I urge the conferees to disagree with the House proposal for the Congressional Research Service to study the transfer of Superintendent of Documents operations to the Library of Congress. According to the language in the report on H.R. 4516, part of the purpose of such a transfer would be to transfer an electronic Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) to the Library (H. Rpt. 106-635, pp. 27-28). However, we already transfer databases to the Library for use on Library systems, such as Thomas, so the need for the physical reorganization of these functions is not clear. Moreover, GPO Access is not created by the FDLP. The congressional and agency databases created for GPO Access-as well as transfer to Thomas-are the by-product of GPO's electronic printing systems. These are integral processes that cannot be transferred without transferring associated printing functions. When a transfer of Superintendent of Documents functions to the Library was studied by the Library in 1994 and again in 1995, the Library expressed reservations due to its lack of experience in operating large-scale publications distribution programs. Also, the Library had reservations about separating the publications distribution function from GPO's production/procurement function, under which publications are obtained for sales and other distribution programs on a cost-effective basis with minimal administrative burden and cost. The removal of the distribution function from GPO could significantly increase the cost of making Government publications available to the public. Again, I urge the conferees to disagree with this transfer study proposal.

Finally, neither body recommended funding for GPO's air conditioning system replacement. However, a recent GAO review of GPO's energy needs says that GPO needs a new air conditioning system quickly, and that a direct appropriation is the most cost effective way of paying for it. I urge the conferees to reconsider our request for this essential funding in light of the recent GAO report.