From: hallman@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Judy Hallman)
Subject: NEW WINDO BILL (fwd)
Originator: hallman@gibbs.oit.unc.edu
Organization: University of North Carolina
Distribution: triangle
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:20:56 GMT

To support list, rtpfreenet list, and triangle.freenet:

I think some of you might be interested in this.
  Judy Hallman, Office of Information Technology
-----------------------

Forwarded message:
> From @pucc.PRINCETON.EDU:CPSR@GWUVM.BITNET Tue Sep 29 20:26:06 1992
> Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:14:02 EDT
> Reply-To: LOVE%TEMPLEVM.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
> Sender: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
>               <CPSR%GWUVM.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>
> From: LOVE%TEMPLEVM.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
> Subject:      NEW WINDO BILL
> To: Multiple recipients of list CPSR <CPSR%GWUVM.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>                               MEMO
>
> From:     James Love <love@essential.org>
>           Taxpayer Assets Project
>
> Re:       HR 5983, legislation to provide online access to
>           federal information
>           (Sucessor to Gateway/WINDO bills)
>
> Date:     September 23, 1992, Washington, DC.
>
>      On Wednesday, September 23, the House Administration
> Committee unanimously approved H.R. 5983, the "Government
> Printing Office (GPO) Electronic Information Access Enhancement
> Act of 1992."  The bill, which had been introduced the day
> before, was cosponsored by committee chairman Charlie Rose (D-
> NC), ranking minority member William Thomas (R-CA) and Pat
> Roberts (R-KA).  The measure was a watered down version of the
> GPO Gateway/WINDO bills (S. 2813, HR 2772), which would provide
> one-stop-shopping online access to hundreds of federal
> information systems and databases.
>
>      The new bill was the product of negotiations between
> Representative Rose and the republican members of the House
> Administration Committee, who had opposed the broader scope of
> the Gateway/WINDO bills.  Early responses to the new bill are
> mixed.  Supporters of the Gateway/WINDO bill were disappointed by
> the narrower scope of the bill, but pleased that the legislation
> retained the Gateway/WINDO policies on pricing of the service
> (free use by depository libraries, prices equal to the
> incremental cost of dissemination for everyone else).  On
> balance, however, the new bill would substantially broaden public
> access to federal information systems and databases, when
> compared to the status quo.
>
>
>      WHAT HR 5983 DOES
>
> The bill that would require the Government Printing Office (GPO)
> to provide public online access to:
>
>      -    the Federal Register
>      -    the Congressional Record
>      -    an electronic directory of Federal public information
>           stored electronically,
>      -    other appropriate publications distributed by the
>                Superintendent of Documents, and
>      -    information under the control of other federal
>                departments or agencies, when requested by the
>                department or agency.
>
> The Superintendent of Documents is also required to undertake a
> feasibility study of further enhancing public access to federal
> electronic information, including assessments the feasibility of:
>
>      -    public access to existing federal information systems,
>      -    the use of computer networks such as the Internet and
>           NREN, and
>      -    the development (with NIST and other agencies) of
>           compatible standards for disseminating electronic
>           information.
>
> There will also be studies of the costs, cost savings, and
> utility of the online systems that are developed, including an
> independent study of GPO's services by GAO.
>
>
>      WHAT HR 5983 DOESN'T DO
>
> The new bill discarded the names WINDO or Gateway without a
> replacement.  The new system is simply called "the system," a
> seemingly minor change, but one designed to give the service a
> lower profile.
>
> A number of other features of the Gateway/WINDO legislation were
> also lost.
>
> -    While both S. 2813 and HR 2772 would have required GPO to
>      provide online access through the Internet, the new bill
>      only requires that GPO study the issue of Internet access.
>
> -    The Gateway/WINDO bills would have given GPO broad authority
>      to publish federal information online, but the new bill
>      would restrict such authority to documents published by the
>      Superintendent of Documents (A small subset of federal
>      information stored electronically), or situations where the
>      agency itself asked GPO to disseminate information stored in
>      electronic formats.  This change gives agencies more
>      discretion in deciding whether or not to allow GPO to
>      provide online access to their databases, including those
>      cases where agencies want to maintain control over databases
>      for financial reasons (to make money off the data).
>
> -    The republican minority insisted on removing language that
>      would have explicitly allowed GPO to reimburse agencies for
>      their costs in providing public access.  This is a
>      potentially important issue, since many federal agencies
>      will not work with GPO to provide public access to their own
>      information systems, unless they are reimbursed for costs
>      that they incur.  Thus, a major incentive for federal
>      agencies was eliminated.
>
> -    S. 2813 and HR 2772 would have required GPO to publish an
>      annual report on the operation of  the Gateway/WINDO and
>      accept and consider *annual* comments from users on a wide
>      range of issues.  The new bill only makes a general
>      requirement that GPO "consult" with users and data vendors.
>      The annual notice requirement that was eliminated was
>      designed to give citizens more say in how the service
>      evolves, by creating a dynamic public record of citizen
>      views on topics such as the product line, prices, standards
>      and the quality of the service.  Given the poor record of
>      many federal agencies in addressing user concerns, this is
>      an important omission.
>
> -    S. 2813 would have provided startup funding of $3 million in
>      fy 92 and $10 million in fy 93.  The new bill doesn't
>      include any appropriation at all, causing some observers to
>      wonder how GPO will be able to develop the online
>      Congressional Record, Federal Register, and directory of
>      databases, as required by the bill.
>
>
>      WHAT HAPPENED?
>
> The bill which emerged from Committee on Wednesday substantially
> reflected the viewpoints of the republicans on the House
> Administration Committee.  The republican staffers who negotiated
> the new bill worked closely with lobbyists for the Industry
> Information Association (IIA), a trade group which represents
> commercial data vendors, and who opposed the broader
> dissemination mandates of the Gateway/WINDO bills.
>
> Why did WINDO sponsor Charlie Rose, who is Chair of the House
> Administration Committee, give up so much in the new bill?
> Because Congress is about to adjourn, and it is difficult to pass
> any controversial legislation at the end of a Congressional
> session.  The failure to schedule earlier hearings or markups on
> the WINDO legislation (due largely to bitter partisan battles
> over the House bank and post office, October Surprise and
> campaign financing reform) gave the republican minority on the
> committee enormous clout, since they could (and did) threaten to
> kill the bill.
>
> Rose deserves credit, however, for being the first member of
> congress to give the issue of citizen online access to federal
> information systems and databases such high prominence, and his
> promise to revisit the question next session is very encouraging.
>
>
>      PROSPECTS FOR PASSAGE
>
> The new bill has a long way to go.  It must be scheduled for a
> floor vote in the House and a vote in the Senate.  The last step
> will likely be the most difficult.  In the last few weeks of a
> Congressional session, any member of the Senate can put a "hold"
> on the bill, preventing it from receiving Senate approval this
> year, thus killing the bill until next legislative session.  OMB
> and the republican minority on the House Administration Committee
> have both signed off on the bill, but commercial data vendors
> would still like to kill the bill.  There's a catch, however.
>
> Rose's staff has reportedly told the Information Industry
> Association (IIA) that if it kills HR 5983, it will see an even
> bolder bill next year.  Since IIA was an active participant in
> the negotiations over the compromise bill, any effort to kill the
> bill will likely antagonize Rose.  Of course, some observers
> think that an individual firm, such as Congressional Quarterly,
> may try to kill the bill.  Only time will tell.
>
>
>      IS THE GLASS HALF EMPTY OR HALF FULL?
>
> Despite the many changes that have weakened the bill, HR 5983 is
> still an important step forward for those who want to broaden
> public access to federal information systems and databases.  Not
> only does the bill require GPO to create three important online
> services (the directory, the Congressional Record and the Federal
> Register), but it creates a vehicle that can do much more.
> Moreover, HR 5983 would provide free online access for 1,400
> federal depository libraries, and limit prices for everyone else
> to the incremental cost of dissemination.  These pricing rules
> are far superior to those used by NTIS, or line agencies like
> NLM, who earn substantial profits on the sale of electronic
> products and services.
>
>      WHAT YOU CAN DO
>
> Urge your Senators and Representatives to support passage of HR
> 5983, quickly, before Congress adjourns in October.  All members
> of Congress can be reached by telephone at 202/224-3121, or by
> mail at the following addresses:
>
>      Senator John Smith            Representative Susan Smith
>      US Senate                     US House of Representatives
>      Washington, DC  20510         Washington, DC  21515
>
>
> The most important persons to contact are your own delegation, as
> well as Senators George Mitchell (D-ME) and Bob Dole (R-KA).
>
> For more information, contact the American Library Association at
> 202/547-4440 or the Taxpayer Assets Project at 215-658-0880.  For
> a copy of HR 5983 or the original Gateway/WINDO bills, send an
> email message to tap@essential.org.
>
> ==============================================================
> James Love, Director              voice     215/658-0880
> Taxpayer Assets Project           fax       call
> 12 Church Road                    internet  love@essential.org
> Ardmore, PA  19003
> ==============================================================
>



Newsgroups: triangle.freenet