X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL16]
Approved-By:  Duncan Aldrich <duncan@EQUINOX.UNR.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.govdoc-l
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:39:49 GMT
From:         Duncan Aldrich <duncan@equinox.unr.edu>
Subject:      GPO/GATEWAY

Forwarded message:

From LISTSERV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU  Wed Jul 29 15:48:39 1992
Resent-Message-Id: <9207292248.AA18345@equinox.unr.edu>
Message-Id: <9207292248.AA18345@equinox.unr.edu>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 29 Jul 92 17:47:33 CDT
Resent-From: "Herb Somers, Northwestern University" <SOMERS@nuacvm.BITNET>
Resent-To: govdoc-l@psuvm.BITNET
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 92 17:33:59 CDT
From: Susan Lewis-Somers for Cheryl Nyberg <SOMERS@nuacvm.BITNET>
Subject:      GPO/GATEWAY
To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu



----------------------------Original message----------------------------

                          Introduction
     The American Association of Law Libraries is pleased to
provide written testimony on H.R. 2772, the GPO Wide Information
for Data Online Act of 1991 (GPO WINDO), and S. 2813, the GPO
Gateway to Government Act of 1992 (GPO Gateway). The Association
supports the concept of central access to multiple government
databases and prefers language used in the GPO Gateway bill.

     The American Association of Law Libraries is a nonprofit
organization with nearly five thousand members. AALL members
handle the legal and government information needs of legislators,
judges, and other public officials at all levels of government;
corporations and business people; law professors and students;
attorneys; and members of the general public.

     Access to government information is indispensable to the
legal community. Legal information and information about the
Federal Government's programs and policies are vital to the
business community as well. Small businesses, in particular, rely
on government information to identify business opportunities in
the local market and in doing business with the government.
Nonprofit organizations, the news media, high school and college
students, writers and scholars, and parents all need government
information. In fact, it is difficult to identify any segment of
the population that does not need or use government information.

     The Association enthusiastically supports the principle
underlying both the GPO Gateway and the GPO WINDO bills. Democra-
cy and government efficiency and productivity are best served by
ready and open access to electronic government information
through a central point, in addition to a diversity of other
sources. With an ever-increasing amount of Federal Government
information created, managed, manipulated, stored, and dissemi-
nated by computer, this central source concept is a logical,
sensible, and economical means of providing access for a wide
range of users. Clearly, as is stated in the findings of the GPO
WINDO bill, "public access to public electronic information will
be greatly enhanced by a single point of online public access."

     Although the two bills are similar in purpose and language,
the Association prefers S. 2813. The GPO Gateway bill contains
several unique provisions that the Association views favorably.

     This statement offers the Association's opinion on both
bills. Comments on the GPO WINDO and the GPO Gateway bills have
been organized as follows:

1.   Purpose and Findings
     a.   Purpose
     b.   Findings

2.   Establishment and Operation of the Electronic Dissemination
     Program at GPO
     a.   Government Printing Office
     b.   Definition of Public Electronic Information
     c.   Comments from Affected Parties
     d.   "Reasonably Appropriate" Databases
     e.   Reliance on Agency Software
     f.   Access through Electronic Networks
     g.   Free Access to Depository Libraries

3.   Fees
4.   Public Notice
5.   Unique Provisions of S. 2813

1.   AALL's Comments on Purpose and Findings

     a.   Purpose
     The purpose of both bills is similar, but the Association
prefers the way in which the purpose is expressed in the Gateway
bill. The WINDO bill's use of the phrase "single point of online
public access" to multiple government databases may be construed
to mean an exclusive public access source. The Association
believes that agencies should be encouraged to provide multiple
avenues of access to electronic government information, includ-
ing, but not limited to, a central source (GPO) through which
multiple databases may be accessed.

     b.   Findings
     The Association heartily agrees with the findings stated in
both bills. "High prices imposed by private vendors," cited in
the WINDO bill, are definitely a concern for the average citizen,
the small law firm, and the small business owner. The cost of
obtaining government information from commercial database provid-
ers prevents many individuals from finding, using, or benefiting
from government information.

     Most law school libraries are also depository libraries.
These libraries serve the government and legal information needs
of local citizens, judges, and attorneys, as well as members of
the law school community. Many state, court, and county law
libraries also serve members of the general public. The fees
charged by commercial database vendors, the unavailability of
many government-maintained databases, and the difficulties and
costs associated with accessing many government-maintained
databases that are available to the public impede the public's
access to government and legal information.

     Many members of the legal community access two database
services, LEXIS and WESTLAW, that provide keyword access to a
wide range of legal materials. These systems are very powerful
and extremely valuable, but very expensive. Academic law librar-
ies access LEXIS and WESTLAW at discounted rates under contracts
that limit access to only the faculty, students, and library
staff of the law schools. Few libraries can afford to provide
free public access to such expensive services. Many small law
firms and businesses find the cost of searching LEXIS and WESTLAW
prohibitive. Consequently, the databases ~ and the wide variety
of electronic government information they contain ~ are not
available to millions of people.

     Printed copies of many of the government information sources
found on LEXIS and WESTLAW are available in depository and other
libraries. But finding a specific law, regulation, or court
opinion in full-text electronic files is often much easier and
less time-consuming than searching the government-produced
printed indexes. One example illustrates this point.
     A parent came to a depository library to read a new rule on
parental notification of children's inoculations. From his
Congressman, the parent had a citation to Public Law 101-239, the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989. Finding the appropri-
ate section in this statute, which is almost four hundred pages
long, would be very difficult and laborious. Because the parent
was not associated with the law school, the librarian could not
search the full text of the statute in LEXIS or WESTLAW without
violating the terms of the educational use contracts.

     The librarian did attempt to find a reference to the regula-
tion in the government-produced indexes to the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations, with no success. Again,
searching the full text of these sources for words like vaccina-
tion, inoculation, and notification might have quickly revealed
the regulation. The librarian and the patron found the regulation
eventually, after several phone calls and exhaustive searches
through the Federal Register. Public access to the online text of
the U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal
Register would have been invaluable.

     Similar transactions occur every day in scores of law school
libraries and in nearly fourteen hundred Federal depository
libraries around the country. Many legal and government informa-
tion questions go unanswered because information created or
maintained by the Federal Government:

1.   has not been published or issued at all by the Government,
2.   has not been distributed to depository libraries at all or
     in a timely fashion, or
3.   has been given or sold to a commercial publisher or database
     vendor, which limits public access to willing buyers. Li-
     braries attempt to serve all user information needs, but
     whether a specific library subscribes to a specific publica-
     tion or database depends on the rates charged by the pub-
     lisher or database vendor, the frequency of requests for the
     information, and the library's ability to pay or budget for
     the publication or service.

     As the cost of legal services escalates, more people are
interested in doing legal research themselves. And as legal
publishing by government and the private sector dramatically
shifts from ink-on-paper to electronic formats, the number and
availability of law books and printed guides to finding the law
diminishes. Online public access to databases of legal informa-
tion through the GPO Gateway/WINDO is absolutely essential. It
has been said that ignorance of the law is no excuse; failing to
provide simple and straight-forward access to basic information
about the law is also inexcusable.

2.   AALL's Comments on the Establishment and Operation of the
     Electronic Dissemination Program at GPO

     a.   Government Printing Office
     Both bills name the Government Printing Office as the
appropriate Federal agency to establish and maintain a system for
electronic public access to Federal Government databases. Cer-
tainly, the GPO and its Office of the Superintendent of Documents
have been instrumental in providing printed government publica-
tions to the public directly, through the sales program, and
indirectly, through the Depository Library Program. In the last
year, the GPO has begun distribution of selected computer dis-
kettes and CD-ROM products to depositories. The GPO's ambitious
strategic plan, GPO/2001: Vision for a New Millennium, describes
a forward-looking agency with serious plans to establish and
promote electronic access to large quantities of government
information.
     However, the GPO is a legislative branch agency. Most of the
Federal agencies that develop and maintain databases of govern-
ment information are in the executive and judicial branches.
Despite the Title 44 requirement that agencies provide copies of
their publications to the GPO for distribution to depository
libraries, many agencies routinely ignore their legal obligation.
The Joint Committee on Printing held oversight hearings on this
problem, known to documents specialists as "fugitive documents,"
in April 1991 (Government Information as a Public Asset (S. hrg.
102-114)).
     The Association is concerned that without a clear Congres-
sional mandate to provide public access to government databases,
many agencies may not cooperate with the GPO in providing public
access to public electronic information through the Gateway or
WINDO.

     b.   Definition of Public Electronic Information
     The Association recommends that the term "public electronic
information" be defined to clarify which databases would be
appropriate for inclusion in the Gateway or WINDO plan. "Public
electronic government" may be defined in the new Chapter 40 for
application in that chapter alone or the definition of "govern-
ment publication" in Chapter 19 may be amended to clearly include
government information in electronic formats. An earlier bill,
the GPO Improvement Act of 1990 (101st Congress, H.R. 3849) did
propose such a redefinition of government publication.
     Definition of public electronic information is crucial to
the success of the Gateway/WINDO plan. Stronger inter-branch
cooperation is needed to insure that law from all three branches
of the Federal Government is made available to the public.
Earlier this year, the Office of Management and Budget issued a
proposed revision of its Circular A-130 (59 Federal Register
18296 (April 29, 1992)). The Circular guides executive branch
agencies in managing Federal information resources and technolo-
gy. Because Title 44, section 1901 defines "informational matter
as an individual document," OMB "believes that it is not clear
that agencies at present have a legal obligation to make elec-
tronic information products available to depository libraries,"
although, "as a matter of policy, many such products should be
made available to the depository libraries in the same manner as
printed materials."

     c.   Comments from Affected Parties
     Regarding the provision on the GPO's "consultation with and
consideration of comments from Federal agencies, potential users,
and others likely to be affected by the program," the Association
suggests that notification of opportunities for the submission of
comments be announced in the Federal Register. The Federal
Register reaches a wide audience, including many of the affected
parties. The GPO should also be encouraged to solicit comments
from identifiable organizations representing affected parties,
including the American Association of Law Libraries, the American
Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, the
Coalition for Networked Information, Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility, EDUCOM, the Federal Publishers Committee,
the Public Data Users Group, the Special Interest Group on CD-ROM
Applications & Technology, and the Special Libraries Association.
Solicitation of comments may also be made over existing electron-
ic networks, bulletin boards, and listservers that focus on
information resources management. A few such forums are the
GovDoc-L, the Law-Lib, the Federal Depository Library Bulletin
Board, and the Economic Bulletin Board.

     d.   "Reasonably Appropriate" Databases
     With the exception of the Gateway bill's mandate to provide
electronic access to online versions of the Congressional Record
and the Federal Register, neither bill expressly identifies
databases that would be "reasonably appropriate" for public
access. A list of potential databases was included in a March 20,
1991 memo from the American Library Association to "colleagues
interested in public dissemination of government information." A
partial list of the databases identified in the memo include
LEGIS (the legislative information system), AGRICOLA (a biblio-
graphic database to articles and publications in agriculture),
the Economic Bulletin Board, the Defense Technology/Export
Licenses Bulletin Board, the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service, the State Department's Dispatch, the Securities and
Exchange Commission's EDGAR, court opinions from the Supreme
Court and the federal courts of appeal, and White House press
releases.

     Perhaps more important than the names of the databases
themselves, the list included databases or electronic government
information sources from all three branches of the Federal
Government. Representatives and Senators are well aware of the
utility of databases that provide up-to-the-minute bill status
and legislative history information. The express inclusion of the
Congressional Record in the Gateway bill suggests recognition of
the value of providing public access to legislative information.
Other publications and databases emanating from the legislative
branch would be highly valued by users of the Gateway/WINDO.
Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the General Ac-
counting Office, and the Office of Technology Assessment; data-
bases created and maintained by the Library of Congress and the
Law Library of Congress; and files dealing with operation of the
Depository Library Program are of great interest to many individ-
uals and organizations.

     In the judicial branch, the federal courts are heavily
engaged in experimenting with public electronic access to judi-
cial opinions and court dockets. Electronic access to Supreme
Court opinions is provided on the GPO's Federal Depository
Library Bulletin Board. Full text Supreme Court opinions are also
accessible through the Cleveland Free-Net, a community-based
online information system. A partnership of private sector,
government, university, and volunteer forces, the Free-Net model
is spreading around the country. Peoria, Illinois, and Youngs-
town, Ohio, have active Free-Nets and a Free-Net is being devel-
oped for the Washington, D.C. area.

     Many lower courts have online information services and many
charge a substantial fee for public access. A list compiled in
early 1992 identified electronic bulletin boards for more than
fifty circuit, district, and bankruptcy courts throughout the
country.

     To ensure that appropriate databases from the legislative
and judicial branches, as well as the executive branch, are made
available to the public through the Gateway/WINDO, the Associa-
tion recommends that section 4002 be so amended. The term "agency
databases" may be defined to include databases from the execu-
tive, judicial, and legislative branches in section 4002 or in a
new section on definitions. The latter approach may be preferable
since other terms, including "public electronic information" and
"incremental cost of dissemination," also require definition.

     e.   Reliance on Agency Software
     The Association acknowledges that the provisions on reliance
"to the maximum extent feasible" on existing agency database
structures and software may be necessary at the outset of the
program. Database administrators may be understandably reluctant
to reformat entire data structures or employ new search and
retrieval software. This reluctance would affect the number and
variety of databases available to the public under Gateway/WINDO.

     Just as the wisdom of providing a central point of access to
multiple databases is evident, clear too is the preference for a
single or limited number of software systems. The need to learn a
new search and retrieval language for each database is surely an
impediment to use by the average citizen. Depository librarians
have already learned this lesson with the more than twenty CD-ROM
products distributed by the Superintendent of Documents. Products
from different agencies often use different systems to search,
manipulate, format, and print the information contained on CD-
ROMs. It takes time and experience for information specialists to
develop expertise with each system. Computer literacy in the
population at large spans the full range, from individuals who
have never touched a computer keyboard to individuals who are
fluent in several computer languages and proficient in computer
programming. To effectively serve the electronic government
information needs of this diverse population of potential users,
Gateway/WINDO should employ a minimal number of software pro-
grams.

     At some point, the Association would like to revisit the
issue of reliance on agency software to eliminate or reduce this
impediment to effective public access to electronic government
information. Different types of databases ~ bibliographic, full-
text, and numeric or statistical ~ may indeed require different
structures and search software. But experience with existing
services that provide access to multiple databases from disparate
sources indicates that a common search and retrieval software
system is possible, feasible, and desirable.

     f.   Access through Electronic Networks
     The Association strongly supports access through "a wide
range of electronic networks . . . to allow broad, reasonable
access to the data." Specific mention of the Internet and the
National Research and Education Network fulfills the hopes of
many information specialists that the existing Internet and the
evolving NREN be used to provide access to the length and breadth
of the country. Using electronic networks avoids the disadvantage
inherent in the use of standard telecommunications lines; the
distance between a citizen and the source of the electronic
information does not result in a disparity of the cost of access.

     The NREN has been compared to the national interstate
highway system. By analogy, the GPO Gateway/WINDO may be likened
to the national parks. Like national parks, the Gateway/WINDO
would become a popular destination for millions of Americans,
accessible at little or no cost. NREN travelers who visit the
Gateway/WINDO would find not recreation or scenic vistas but
vital government and legal information. Individuals who prefer
and can afford deluxe resorts ~ commercial database vendors ~ are
free to enjoy those specialized services while the national parks
~ the GPO Gateway/WINDO ~ are democratic and open to all without
regard for the ability to pay. The GPO Gateway/WINDO does not
compete with the NREN. It is a destination, not the road.

     g.   Free Access for Depository Libraries
     The Association most strongly supports the provision of free
access to the GPO Gateway/WINDO to the nearly fourteen hundred
Federal depository libraries. For over one hundred years, these
libraries have served as primary disseminators of government
information. Depository libraries have invested substantial
funds, time, and personnel to provide and promote public access
to government publications. One study estimated that over 167,000
people a week use depository libraries to find government infor-
mation.

     The Federal Government's increasing use of information
technology has threatened the integrity of the depository library
program. Some agencies have discontinued publication and dissemi-
nation of printed matter in favor of electronic dissemination.
Free access to multiple databases through the GPO begins a
reversal of the decline in publicly accessible information from
the Federal Government.

     Further redissemination of electronic government information
by depository libraries may also extend the reach and value of
Gateway/WINDO. Depositories, and libraries generally, have
engaged in widespread programs for sharing their books and other
material. Similarly, depositories can facilitate and expand the
dissemination of high-interest government information over
electronic bulletin boards and other networks. For example, the
Cleveland Free-Net and the other Free-Nets around the country may
offer a model on which similar information-sharing networks may
be based. The eventual penetration of the NREN to rural and other
underserved segments of the population will further enable a
ripple effect in the widening electronic dissemination of govern-
ment information.

3.  AALL's Comments on Fees
     The Association understands the term "incremental cost of
dissemination" to mean the difference between the expense of
creating, maintaining, and providing access to a database within
the originating agency and the cost of providing access to all
other users. Since the term may be open to varied interpreta-
tions, the Association suggests that it be defined.

     Several questions are posed by the fees issue. If the
process of upgrading or improving a database system to provide
public access also enhances and improves the agency's own access
to the database, should the full cost of the upgrade be consid-
ered in determining the incremental cost of dissemination? How
must capital expenses be factored in determining incremental
costs? Would revenue collected by the GPO be available to the GPO
to maintain and expand its electronic dissemination services?
Should costs to provide access to other Federal agencies be
included in determining the incremental costs?

     This last point ~ providing access to other Federal agencies
~ is a valuable feature of the GPO Gateway/WINDO plans. While the
bills' original intentions are to provide and improve public
access to public electronic information, government access to
electronic government information may also improve significantly.
The central source concept works as well for Federal agencies as
for depository libraries, businesses, law firms, and average
citizens.

     Further economies are possible, assuming that the incremen-
tal cost of dissemination is less expensive than the rates
charged by commercial database services for access to the same
types of government information. The amount of money spent by
Federal agencies in searching private sector databases for
government information, often searching for information from
their own agencies, is incalculable.

     A source of additional potential savings is the effect of
the GPO Gateway/WINDO on government productivity. To the extent
that the Gateway/WINDO satisfies the public's demand for govern-
ment information, individual requests for information and publi-
cations should subside. Congressional staff, administrative
agencies employees, and court clerks will spend less time locat-
ing and mailing documents and more time on other tasks.

4.  AALL's Comments on Public Notice

     The Association supports provisions on public notice regard-
ing the services, prices, policies, and use statistics on the GPO
Gateway/WINDO program in the Federal Register. Announcement of
the availability of the annual report should also be made in the
Federal Register and the text of the annual report should be
available electronically over the Gateway/WINDO. The GPO should
be encouraged to solicit and respond to comments, observations,
and questions from affected users in a timely fashion, other than
in its annual report on the program. The Association encourages
the appropriate Congressional  committees to maintain their
active interest in the program and to hold hearings at appropri-
ate intervals.

5.  AALL's Comments on Unique Provisions of S. 2813
     The differences between H.R. 2772 and S. 2813 are not
substantial. Overall, the Association prefers the Senate version
for its greater specificity on some issues and the inclusion of
several unique provisions.

     The Gateway bill deals with two subjects that are not
considered in the WINDO bill: standardization and intergovernmen-
tal cooperation. In section 2 (5), a finding is made that "in-
creased coordination between the Government Printing Office and
other Federal agencies in setting standards and formats for
databases, in selecting database software, and in networking
different databases," addresses a concern previously expressed
(above, 2 (e), Reliance on Agency Software). Section 4002(7)
advises the Superintendent of Documents to "facilitate the
adoption of compatible standards for electronic publishing and
dissemination throughout the Federal Government."

     Data specialists, inside government and in the computer and
information industries, are working on standards. The development
and implementation of standards is important not only for pres-
ent-day access to government information but also for historical
use of the information. A division of the National Archives and
Records Administration, the Center for Electronic Records, is one
agency that is concerned about long-term access to electronic
records. Along with the technical ability to access electronic
information created and stored using outdated programs is the
concern for the retention of electronic information. Agencies
must develop policies and programs for the retention of all
information that has historical or archival value, regardless of
the format in which the information was originally created or
disseminated. Many existing electronic bulletin boards purge
older files at periodic intervals. If the purged files are not
captured or stored in some way, access to that information will
be irretrievably lost.

     Intergovernmental cooperation should be a hallmark of this
type of legislation. Just as the format of government information
should not determine whether the public may access the informa-
tion, the branch of government from which the information ema-
nates should not be a deciding factor in determining public
access. Unless this legislation applies equally to databases
maintained by the executive, judicial, and legislative branches,
public access to the full range of electronic government informa-
tion will be frustrated.

     Another aspect of intergovernmental cooperation that may
result from the implementation of the Gateway/WINDO is the
discovery of duplicative or parallel databases maintained by
different agencies. No comprehensive catalog, directory, or
inventory is available to answer the threshold question: does
some agency of the Federal Government maintain a database on
  ? The number and variety of government-sponsored or produced
databases is so great that experts can only begin to identify and
list them.

     Several prospective solutions to the identification problem
have been considered. The Office of Management and Budget has
produced a Federal Information Locator System and has commis-
sioned a study on an improved model. The Government Printing
Office described a comprehensive Federal information product and
service locator system known as FIND in its GPO/2001 report.
Congress directed the Secretary of Commerce to study "the feasi-
bility of establishing and operating a Federal Online Information
Product Catalog (FEDLINE) at the National Technical Information
Service which would serve as a comprehensive inventory and
authoritative register of information products and services
disseminated by the Federal Government and assist agencies and
the public in locating Federal Government information." The
report, mandated by the American Technology Preeminence Act of
1991 (Public Law 102-245), is due before the end of 1992.

     The creation of any of these comprehensive inventories would
greatly improve a user's ability to identify and locate electron-
ic information produced or maintained by the Federal Government.
Agencies may discover databases that overlap, complement, or
duplicate other databases. Agencies may wish to cooperate in
designing a new database that combines elements of two separate
databases (providing that the combination does not result in
impermissible matching of personal or confidential information).
The opportunities for improving governmental efficiency increase
as more databases are identified and accessible through a central
source.
     The Association commends the inclusion of the Congressional
Record and the Federal Register in the Gateway bill. However, the
bill fails to specify which electronic format should be provided:
online, CD-ROM, or computer diskette. Will the electronic Con-
gressional Record contain the daily editions, the final editions,
or both?
     The Association is pleased that the Gateway bill authorizes
the expenditure of funds specifically for the operation of this
plan. Although the Association is not qualified to determine
whether the amounts suggested are sufficient for the undertaking,
the express authorization should enable the GPO to begin the
planning process.
                           Conclusion
     The American Association of Law Libraries supports the
proposal to provide a central point of access to a variety of
Federal Government databases. All users, including users within
the Federal Government itself, will enjoy more timely and easier
access to this valuable array of databases.

     The one-stop approach eliminates a fundamental impediment to
public access to electronic government information: the need to
arrange for access with many individual database producers.
Citizens from all walks of life in all areas of the country will
enjoy free access to valuable government information in their
local depository libraries. The integrity and usefulness of the
depository library program, a primary channel of public access to
government information for over one hundred years, will be
restored.

     Neither bill restricts the private sector's ability to
provide value-added access to electronic government information
for which a market exists. The central source plans described in
the Gateway/WINDO bills are not exclusive arrangements. Instead,
the Gateway/WINDO programs aim to satisfy some of the government
information needs of a large population that is not usually
served by the commercial sector: the general public.

     While the cost of establishing this public access program
may be substantial, the cost to the Federal Government may be
offset in several ways. The difference between the fees charged
by commercial database vendors for access to electronic govern-
ment information and the fees charged under the "incremental cost
of dissemination" assessed under Gateway/WINDO may be consider-
able. Significant savings are possible if Federal agencies search
databases of government information through the Gateway/WINDO
instead of through commercial vendors. The opportunities for
improved intergovernmental cooperation and greater government
productivity may also reduce the overall cost of the program.

     The Association believes that the bills may be strengthened
in several ways. First, a definition section should clarify the
meanings of "public electronic information," "agency databases,"
and "incremental cost of dissemination." Definition of the first
and second terms should clearly state that databases from all
branches of the Federal Government are appropriate for inclusion
in the Gateway/WINDO. Second, the use of agency database struc-
tures and search software should be viewed as an interim measure.
The Association supports the development and implementation of
one or two common software programs as a means of improving
effective public access to electronic government information.
     The American Association of Law Libraries appreciates the
opportunity to express its views on these two important bills.
The Association's Washington Affairs Representative, Robert
Oakley, is available to discuss the Association's views. Mr.
Oakley may be contacted at the Georgetown University Law Center,
111 G Street, NW, Washington, DC  20001, (202) 662-9131.




                        Statement of the

            The American Association of Law Libraries




                           Before the

                          U.S. Congress
          Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

                             and the

                Committee on House Administration



                               on

                            H.R. 2772
        GPO Wide Information for Data Online Act of 1991

                               and

                             S. 2813
              GPO Gateway to Government Act of 1992



                     Thursday, July 23, 1992


                          Submitted by
                        Mr. Robert Oakley
             AALL Washington Affairs Representative
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU