ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES 

Newsletter of the Federal Depository Library Program

Vol. 18, no. 07 GP 3.16/3-2:18/07 May 1, 1997 

Michael F. DiMario 

 Public Printer 

 Opening Remarks Before the 

 Committee on Rules and Administration 

 U.S. Senate

 on 

 Proposed Revisions to Title 44, U.S. Code 

 Thursday, April 24, 1997

Mr. Chairman, Senator Ford, and Members of the Committee on Rules and 

Administration, thank you for inviting me here this morning to provide comments on proposed 

revisions to Title 44, U.S. Code. 

In the interest of time, I will briefly summarize my prepared statement which has been 

submitted for the record. 

I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for the high level of interest you are giving to 

protecting public access to Government information. In previous hearings on public access and 

on the GPO, you conveyed your deep interest in this important issue as well as your 

determination to effect needed changes. 

I know that Senator Ford as Ranking Member also shares a deep concern for protecting 

public access from my experience in working with him as the previous Chairman of this 

Committee. 

In addition, I appreciate the process of consultation that has been conducted by the staff 

director of the JCP, Mr. Eric Peterson, in preparing the proposed revisions to Title 44. 

1 

I support the Title 44 revision objectives that you are pursuing: (1) resolving the 

constitutional separation of powers issue; (2) establishing an effective compliance mechanism; 

(3) ensuring public access and protecting the Federal Depository Library Program; and (4) 

dealing with new information technologies. 
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

2 

I think the process that so far has resulted in the unnumbered draft bill known as the 

“Government Printing Office Act of 1997" is a positive beginning. However, I strongly 

believe that this draft will need several changes and a great deal of further development before 

it is a sound and effective approach to the resolution of our jointly held concerns. My 

prepared statement details my concerns. 

The most important concern I have is with the proposal to transfer GPO to the executive 

branch. I believe the transfer of JCP authorities to the Public Printer, who would exercise 

them as a Presidential appointee, would resolve the problem of constitutionality regarding 

congressional control over executive branch printing. 

The transfer of GPO to the executive branch in any form is neither necessary nor desirable 

if Congress wishes to continue ensuring cost-effectiveness and efficiency in Government 

printing, as well as comprehensive and equitable public access to taxpayer-supported 

information. 

As I stated before this Committee last July, I think the 1996 memorandum opinion of the 

Justice Department on this issue was wrongly decided. GPO does not have “extensive control” 

over executive branch printing, but handles this work in a purely ministerial capacity. We 

have no veto power or other control over executive work. All of our functions are performed 

under the authority of the Public Printer who, like other officers of the executive branch, is 

appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and serves only at the pleasure of the 

President. 

It is regrettable that the Justice Department reached a conclusion opposite to the facts, and 

that this conclusion is now being used by Federal agencies as a pretext for not sending their 

work to GPO. It is also regrettable when the Justice Department signals that it will not uphold 

the law requiring economy in Government printing and comprehensive and equitable public 

access to Government information. 

The 1996 Justice Department opinion reaches far beyond the Department’s previous 

opinions on Title 44. Why did they come to this conclusion only in 1996, 136 years after GPO 

was established by law and 14 years after the Chadha decision? I don’t know, but the 1996 

opinion clearly underscores the goal of the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) to allow the executive branch to establish its own printing policy. 

At this point, I would like to state for the record, Mr. Chairman, that my references to 

OMB both in my prepared statement and this morning are intended to refer to OIRA and not to 

OMB as a whole. I would also say that my references to the National Performance Review are 

also to OIRA’s continued pursuit of NPR goals, not to the NPR itself. 

GPO has an excellent working relationship with OMB Director Franklin Raines, as we did 

with Alice Rivlin and Leon Panetta when each was Director, and we look forward to working 

every year with the OMB staff on preparing the U.S. Budget and related matters. However, 

we have a different view of the activities of OIRA. 
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

3 

Mr. Chairman, the source of the constitutional issue is not where GPO is located in the 

Government’s organization chart. It is instead the entanglement of the JCP’s control with GPO 

operations under several provisions of Title 44. Many observers, including the Justice 

Department itself, have pointed to this feature of the law as constitutionally questionable. 

Removing the problem of entanglement by transferring JCP authorities to the Public 

Printer would be a relatively simple matter. It would leave the operational requirements for 

GPO intact, including the requirement in 44 U.S.C. 501 that all Government printing be 

performed through GPO as well as the enforcing mechanism in section 207 of the 1995 

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. 

The disadvantages of the proposal to transfer GPO to the executive branch, on the other 

hand, are potentially significant. First, if the proposition is accepted that in order to be 

constitutional GPO must be transferred to the executive branch, the legislative and judicial 

branches will immediately be provided with a constitutional pretext for withdrawing their work 

from GPO. The costs of establishing separate production or procurement entities for each of 

these branches would be significant, and it would erect new barriers to public access to 

congressional and judicial information through GPO’s programs. 

Second, I seriously doubt whether GPO can be reconstituted in the executive branch with 

sufficient protections to prevent its control by OMB through OIRA, which has not always had 

a strong record of commitment to comprehensive and equitable public access to taxpayersupported information and to the cost-effective production and procurement of Government 

information products. 

Establishing GPO as an independent agency in the executive branch would require a 

significant range of guarantees that OIRA, and other agencies, could not interfere with the 

operation of statutory objectives assigned by Congress to GPO. I am far from certain that 

these guarantees could be provided. OIRA’s reach is sweeping and pervasive throughout the 

executive branch. If GPO remains in its current location, it would not be subject to those 

controls. 

Placing GPO in the executive branch would put our policies for information production, 

procurement, and dissemination in direct competition with those of larger, more influential 

departments and agencies, and I am not confident that we would be able to effectively carry out 

our mission in such an environment. 

Placing GPO in the executive branch would also strengthen the potential for OIRA to 

create policies that would decentralize GPO’s operations back to the agencies, an idea that 

OIRA has continually supported. As we have testified in detail before this Committee, such 

decentralization could impose enormous costs on the taxpayers and severely jeopardize public 

access to Government information. OIRA currently is performing a study of executive branch 

printing which I suspect is targeted toward this purpose. GPO has not been consulted or 

invited to participate in this study, which I find stunning given GPO’s statutory responsibility 

for all Government printing. 
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

4 

Finally, placing GPO in the executive branch would subject us to several laws, 

regulations, and policies that could require significant and potentially costly changes to GPO’s 

programs and operations. 

For all of these reasons, therefore, the option to transfer JCP authorities to GPO seems to 

me to be a far more simple, direct, and effective method of dealing with the separation of 

powers issue than transferring GPO to the executive branch, and we can provide this 

Committee with the appropriate language to accomplish this purpose. 

Mr. Chairman, again I commend you and the Members of this Committee for undertaking 

this important project. We will provide legislative language to achieve the objectives I have 

outlined in this presentation, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to achieve a 

revision of Title 44 that will provide cost-effective and openly accessible information services 

for Congress, Federal agencies, and the public. This concludes my opening remarks, and I 

would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

5 

Michael F. DiMario 

 Public Printer 

 Prepared Statement Before the 

 Committee on Rules and Administration 

 U.S. Senate

 on 

 Proposed Revisions to Title 44, U.S. Code 

 Thursday, April 24, 1997

Mr. Chairman, Senator Ford, and Members of the Committee on Rules and 

Administration, thank you for inviting me here this morning to provide comments on proposed 

revisions to Title 44, U.S. Code. 

From the outset, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for the high level of interest you 

are giving to protecting public access to Government information. In previous hearings on 

public access and on the Government Printing Office (GPO), held before this Committee last 

July and before the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) in March, you conveyed your deep 

interest in this important issue as well as your determination to effect needed changes. I know 

that Senator Ford as Ranking Member also shares a deep concern for protecting public access 

from my experience in working with him as the previous Chairman of this Committee. In 

addition, I appreciate the process of consultation that has been conducted by the staff director 

of the JCP, Mr. Eric Peterson, in preparing the proposed revisions to Title 44. 

I support the Title 44 revision objectives that you are pursuing: (1) resolving the 

constitutional separation of powers issue; (2) establishing an effective and enforceable 

compliance mechanism; (3) ensuring public access to taxpayer-supported information as well as 

preserving and protecting the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP); and (4) ensuring 

that both Title 44 and the FDLP can continue to operate effectively in this era of changing 

information technologies. I have been involved in these issues and efforts to resolve them for 

many years. 

I think the process that so far has resulted in the unnumbered draft bill known as the 

“Government Printing Office Act of 1997" is a positive beginning. However, I strongly 

believe that this draft will need several changes and a great deal of further development before 

I could support it as a sound and effective approach to the resolution of our jointly held 

concerns. My statement today outlines these changes, and I look forward to working closely 

with you to develop the necessary legislative language. 
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

6 

Separation of Powers

In my view, the transfer of JCP authorities to the Public Printer, who would exercise them 

as a Presidential appointee, would resolve the problem of congressional control over executive 

branch printing. The transfer of GPO to the executive branch in any form is neither necessary 

nor desirable if Congress wishes to continue ensuring cost-effectiveness and efficiency in 

Government printing as well as comprehensive and equitable public access to taxpayersupported information. 

The 1996 memorandum opinion of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel 

(OLC) to the General Services Administration (GSA) appears to be the basis of the proposal to 

transfer GPO to the executive branch (Memorandum for Emily C. Hewitt, General Counsel, 

General Services Administration, from Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, Office of 

Legal Counsel, Re: Government Printing Office Involvement in Executive Branch Printing, 

May 31, 1996). Yet without exception, for twelve years prior to this opinion the OLC had 

taken the far more limited position that the separation of powers problem lies in the statutes 

authorizing direct JCP control over executive branch printing (Memorandum for William H. 

Taft IV, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, from Theodore B. Olson, 

Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Effect of INS v. Chadha on 44 

U.S.C. 501, “Public Printing and Documents,” March 2, 1984; Memorandum for Michael J. 

Horowitz, Counsel to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, from Theodore B. 

Olson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Constitutionality of Proposed 

Regulations of Joint Committee on Printing under Buckley v. Valeo and INS v. Chadha, April 

11, 1984; and Memorandum for Michael J. Horowitz, Counsel to the Director, Office of 

Management and Budget, from Theodore B. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of 

Legal Counsel, Re: Government Printing, Binding, and Distribution Policies and Guidelines of 

the Joint Committee on Printing, August 21, 1984). 

Before 1996, the OLC only once addressed the constitutionality of GPO operations 

themselves. In 1993, the OLC opined that the statutory requirement that no appropriated funds 

may be used by executive branch agencies to procure the production of any Government 

publication except through GPO, found in section 207 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 

Act for FY 1995, 

...does not violate the separation of powers by delegating executive authority to the 

GPO...It does not give the GPO the authority to refuse to print any materials, but 

merely requires that printing be procured “by and through” the GPO. Moreover, 

because 44 U.S.C. 1101 provides that “the Public Printer shall execute such printing 

and binding for the President as he may order and make requisition for,” the 

executive branch retains its ability to ensure that materials are printed. 

(Memorandum for Emily C. Hewitt, General Counsel, General Services 

Administration, from Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal 

Counsel, Re: General Services Administration Printing Operations, September 13, 

1993; this principle was reaffirmed in Memorandum for Emily C. Hewitt, General 

Counsel, General Services Administration, from Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney 
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

7 

General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Reconsideration of September 13, 1993, 

Opinion, March 11, 1994.) 

Since the Chadha decision, many observers thought that any constitutional challenge to the 

validity of the JCP’s control would result in severing those provisions from the statute, and that 

the rest of Title 44 covering GPO would stand. I suggested in statements before this 

Committee in 1994 and last July, and before the House Oversight Committee in 1995, that a 

transfer of JCP authorities to the Public Printer offered a workable solution to the problem. 

In 1996, the OLC stated for the first time that GPO’s “extensive control” over executive 

branch printing violates the separation of powers. Why did the OLC change its mind after 

twelve years? I don’t know, but it is clear that the 1996 opinion underscored the goal of the 

National Performance Review (NPR) to allow the executive branch to establish its own printing 

policy. 

As I stated before this Committee last July, I think the OLC’s 1996 opinion was wrongly 

decided. GPO has no “extensive control” over executive branch printing. As the OLC itself 

stated, GPO has no veto authority over executive branch work. Instead, GPO handles 

executive work in a purely ministerial capacity. Under Title 44, we cannot refuse to fulfill an 

executive branch requisition for printing, and we have no control over the editorial or 

information content of executive branch publications. Our job is only to ensure that printing 

requisitions are fulfilled in the most economical and timely manner possible, and to provide for 

the cost-effective, comprehensive, and equitable dissemination of Government information to 

the public through information products obtained with GPO funds. These functions are 

performed under the authority of the Public Printer who, like many officers in the executive 

branch, is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and serves solely at the 

pleasure of the President. 

I believe that the source of the problem is not where GPO is located in the Government’s 

organization chart. GPO has operated effectively in its current location for more than a 

century. The issue instead is the entanglement of the JCP’s control with GPO operations under 

several provisions of Title 44. The OLC’s 1996 opinion stated as much when it said, “the 

constitutional doctrine of separation of powers forbids Congress from vesting non-legislative 

functions--specifically, in the case of your inquiry, executive functions--in the GPO if Congress 

retains control over the GPO” (p. 9, emphasis added). In a recent letter to the Chairman 

conveying responses to questions for the record submitted by this Committee to the Justice 

Department following the hearing last July, the Department again made the claim that “the 

Constitution prohibits Congress from vesting an entity over which Congress has control with 

executive functions,” and went on to itemize specifically those controls that it finds 

objectionable. Each one pertains to statutory controls exercised by the JCP over GPO (Letter 

from Andrew Fois, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of 

Justice, to the Honorable John W. Warner, Chairman, Committee on Rules and 

Administration, U.S. Senate, April 7, 1997, response to question 2, emphasis added). 

The question remains, then, whether the satisfactory resolution of the separation of powers 

issue lies in the targeted, surgical removal of the offending provisions of the current statute 
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

8 

through the transfer of JCP authorities to the Public Printer, or whether a wholesale transfer of 

GPO to the executive branch is necessary or even desirable. Transferring JCP authorities to 

the Public Printer would leave intact the operational requirements for GPO, including the 

requirement in 44 U.S.C. 501 that all Government printing be performed through GPO as well 

as the enforcing mechanism in section 207 of the 1995 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. 

 The disadvantages of the proposal to transfer GPO to the executive branch, on the other hand, 

are potentially significant. 

First, if the proposition is accepted that in order to be constitutional GPO must be 

transferred to the executive branch, the legislative and judicial branches will immediately be 

provided with a constitutional pretext for withdrawing their work from GPO. The costs of 

establishing separate production or procurement entities for each of these branches would be 

significant, and it would erect new barriers to public access to congressional and judicial 

information through GPO’s programs. I am especially uncertain that Congress could or would 

continue to depend on an executive branch agency for its printing needs, and I recall that a 

proposal to transfer GPO to the executive branch in the 103rd Congress was quickly amended 

to retain it in its current location. In a redrawn Title 44 which simply transfers current JCP 

authorities to the Public Printer, this issue would be avoided. If the sense is that, once the 

constitutional problem with JCP control is removed, executive branch agencies will not come 

to GPO in its current location simply because they do not like cooperating with a centrally 

managed information production, procurement, and dissemination authority, transferring GPO 

to the executive branch itself would not make any difference. 

Second, I seriously doubt whether GPO can be reconstituted in the executive branch with 

sufficient protections to prevent its control by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

an agency which has not always had a strong record of commitment to comprehensive and 

equitable public access to taxpayer-supported information and to the cost-effective production 

and procurement of Government information products. 

I have commented several times before this Committee, the House Oversight Committee, 

the JCP, and our Appropriations Committees on the costs and public access problems posed by 

the proliferation of agency printing operations, a situation that OMB has taken no interest in 

correcting despite the ability to do so through policy circulars issued by its Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs. OMB has also continued to actively promote the NPR 

proposals that would decentralize, and thereby raise the costs of, Government printing. I am 

skeptical of OMB’s interest in protecting public access to Government information. OMB has 

only weakly supported the FDLP. It has not enforced the statutory requirement that agencies 

provide copies of publications produced elsewhere than GPO for distribution to depository 

libraries. It has stood by when agencies have attempted to use copyright or copyright-like 

controls on Government information that impede public access in spite of statutes on copyright 

and in the Paperwork Reduction Act that prohibit such activity. The problems with OMB’s 

own legislative proposal for the FDLP, circulated last year and which I commented on before 

this Committee last July, only reinforce my concerns about its commitment to public access. 

Establishing GPO as an independent agency in the executive branch would require a 

significant range of guarantees that OMB, and other agencies, could not interfere with the 
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

9 

operation of statutory objectives assigned by Congress to GPO. I am far from certain that 

these guarantees could be provided. OMB’s controls are sweeping and pervasive throughout 

the executive branch. If GPO remains in its current location, it would not be subject to those 

controls. Moreover, placing GPO in the executive branch would put our policies for 

information production, procurement, and dissemination in direct competition with those of 

larger, more influential departments and agencies, and I am not confident that we would be 

able to effectively carry out our mission in such an environment. 

Finally, placing GPO in the executive branch would subject us to a host of laws, 

regulations, and policies for which we are currently unprepared and which may be injurious to 

our programs, and could lead to higher costs for the taxpayers. For example, it would 

potentially subject our printing procurement program to the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR), which provides for a far less effective and competitive procurement system than our 

current Printing Procurement Regulation (section 402 of the current draft bill appears to 

contain an exemption for GPO from the FAR, but such language would need to be much 

clearer and more specific than is currently provided). As another example, if GPO were in the 

executive branch, would it be possible to use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain from us 

a copy of a manuscript, perhaps a congressional report, before it is printed and issued? Our 

personnel systems would require substantial revision, as would other programs and operations, 

all of which would impose additional costs on GPO. 

For all of these reasons, therefore, the option to transfer JCP authorities to GPO seems to 

me to be a far more simple, direct, and effective method of dealing with the separation of 

powers issue than transferring GPO to the executive branch, and we can provide this 

Committee with the appropriate language to accomplish this purpose. 

As to the future of the JCP, the draft bill calls for the remaining JCP oversight authorities 

and control over congressional printing to be shared between this Committee and the House 

Oversight Committee. While the final disposition of this matter is for Congress to decide, I 

have previously said that JCP authority over these matters has been very useful to GPO, 

particularly in the area of resolving issues between the two Chambers on questions of 

congressional format, style, and printing priorities and especially during extremely busy 

periods such as sine die sessions. Appropriate legislative oversight over Government printing 

and information dissemination issues may be more effectively accomplished through a joint 

body, such as a Joint Committee on Information Management, as proposed in the House report 

of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress in the 103rd Congress. If you wish 

we can provide you with proposed language to do this. 

In one final matter regarding the transfer of JCP authorities to GPO, the authority to 

resolve wage disputes between GPO management and labor could not be exercised by the 

Public Printer, nor by any congressional committee if there is to be a complete severing of 

congressional control over GPO. There are undoubtedly several alternatives that could be 

devised that would allow for the fair and impartial resolution of wage disputes at GPO, and we 

can provide language to this Committee. 

Compliance Mechanism
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

10 

When Congress consolidated the Superintendent of Documents function with GPO in the 

Printing Act of 1895, it set up a system whereby the production and procurement of 

publications and information products were automatically linked with the documents 

distribution function. Under this system, publishing entities, including Congress and Federal 

agencies, obtain the most economical and timely production of their publications while the 

operations and costs for disseminating information products are transparent to them, since GPO 

selects, distributes, and pays for the cost of publications made available to the public. 

As long as the linkage between production, procurement, and dissemination continues to 

operate, the Government and the public will have one of the most effective mechanisms for 

ensuring comprehensive and equitable access to Government information. When that linkage 

is enhanced with the operational capabilities that GPO has on hand--especially the capability to 

combine packages of expert electronic services, procurement facilitation, and creative 

dissemination systems such as was developed for the new Commerce Business Daily--agencies 

have an additional incentive to utilize GPO’s operations and programs for their information 

products, and the public has an additional guarantor of access. 

 Backing up the requirement that agencies utilize GPO for printing and procurement is the 

section 207 prohibition on utilizing appropriated funds to procure the production of 

Government publications. This is a useful compliance tool, and with the removal of the 

constitutional issue regarding the JCP and GPO, it will help limit the activities of other Federal 

printing entities. If the reference in this provision to “appropriated funds” is being interpreted 

as preventing its applicability to publications produced through revolving or other funds, we 

can devise language to clarify Congress’s intention. 

I recognize the Committee’s concern to develop methods that would prevent agencies from 

using copyright and copyright-like controls on information products that impede public access 

to taxpayer-supported information. The current draft bill contains sections establishing civil 

penalties for such actions. However, I think these penalties are unnecessarily harsh and I 

question whether they would be effective. There already is a criminal penalty for fraudulently 

copyrighting information under Title 17 of the U.S. Code, although I don’t know how much it 

is used. 

Establishing new definitions would be helpful in clarifying Congress’s intent to ensure 

continued public access to Government information. The draft bill contains proposed 

definitions, although as I explain below I believe they need to be changed. Other compliance 

tools available are the 1994 position of the Comptroller General that agencies contracting 

directly for work in violation of section 207 may not pay contractors for such work, and 

various agency inspectors general can be called on to help ensure that lawful requirements are 

observed. Beyond these, there are other ways to address the problem of compliance that 

could be effective without necessarily penalizing employees. 

One such measure would be to eliminate the current exemption from depository 

distribution requirements found in 44 U.S.C. 1903 for cooperative publications, those 

publications that necessarily must be sold to be self-sustaining. There is little evidence that 

depository distribution of publications injures public sales (all of the titles we carry in our sales 
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

11 

program are also distributed to depository libraries). The exemption for cooperative 

publications is used by some agencies as authority to evade the requirement for depository 

distribution of their publications, particularly the National Technical Information Service 

(NTIS) of the Commerce Department. The elimination of the exemption would remove that 

obstacle to NTIS cooperation with the FDLP without necessarily interfering with its ability to 

recover costs. Similar language could be developed to specifically state that Government 

publications developed as the result of joint ventures and related agreements must be placed in 

the FDLP. 

The draft bill contains language requiring the Public Printer to consult with advisory 

councils of agencies and others doing business with GPO. We already do this as a matter of 

practice through the Interagency Council on Printing and Publications and the Depository 

Library Council. These mechanisms improve communications and decrease the necessity for 

enforcement measures, but I am not convinced they need to be required by statute. 

Ensuring Public Access and Protecting the FDLP

In this day when we see an increased number of entrepreneurial actions by agencies with 

Government information products, it would be very useful to reaffirm Congress’s intention that 

permanent public access to taxpayer-supported information cannot be restricted or impaired. 

This will help protect the mission of the FDLP. An explicit reference in the law to GPO’s role 

in making information available in “any form or format” is also necessary to remove any 

ambiguity about GPO’s role in the electronic era. 

I agree with the need for a new definition of “Government publication,” as currently 

provided in 44 U.S.C. 1901. However, I am concerned that the draft bill’s definitions of 

“Government publication” and “public information” may be interpreted to mean that only 

those materials which an agency takes action to “disclose, disseminate, make available to the 

public, or make available for dissemination to the public” must be included in the FDLP. Such 

an interpretation could result in the exclusion of many Government information products that 

are developed for internal use or for a very narrow target audience, but which have significant 

public interest or educational value. 

Instead of “public information,” I would suggest the use of the term “Government 

information” which is reflective of the public’s broader interest, as currently expressed in 44 

U.S.C. 1902. This section of law does not apply just to products developed specifically for 

dissemination to the public. I would also suggest the term “Government information product” 

instead of “Government publication.” This term can cover all “works of the United States 

Government” in any form or format, whereas the term “publication” is associated primarily 

with print products. 

In my view, the language “at Government expense, or as required by law” must be 

included in the definitions, as found currently in 44 U.S.C. 1901. Many Government 

information products, particularly those of a scientific and technical nature, are developed at 

Government expense by private contractors and grantees, so this language is necessary to 
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

12 

ensure that such products are included in the FDLP. I would also suggest that a new term, 

“Government electronic information service,” be used to describe the many electronic sites, 

such as Web sites and bulletin boards, now being operated by Federal agencies. These 

“services” constitute the platforms that enable the use of information products which reside on 

them. 

Finally, the definition of “work of the U.S. Government” under section 102 of the draft 

bill would amend 44 U.S.C. 3502, a provision of the Paperwork Reduction Act, which applies 

only to the executive branch. In order to have a Government-wide application, some other 

vehicle for this definition should be considered. We will work with you to devise the needed 

changes. 

The suggested legislative changes to chapter 19 of Title 44 that we submitted to this 

Committee by letter dated August 22, 1996, should be reviewed for incorporation into the draft 

bill. The changes resulted primarily from the Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a 

Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program (GPO: June 

1996) that was requested by Congress. The study included the task of an “evaluation of 

current laws governing the FDLP and recommendation of legislative changes.” Working on 

this task were GPO staff along with representatives of the American Library Association 

(ALA), the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), the Association of Research 

Libraries (ARL), and the Information Industry Association (IIA), although all members of the 

study group, including OMB, were invited to participate. After publishing the final study 

report, we informally discussed and reviewed the suggestions for changes with Government 

information groups of the ALA, the AALL, members of the depository library community, 

and GPO’s Depository Library Council, and the changes we sent to the Committee reflected 

that consultative process. In addition to offering changed definitions of “Government 

publication” as described above, the changes include specific language for establishing 

mechanisms for ensuring permanent public access to Government information in all formats 

and for generally modernizing the depository library statutes. 

Meeting New Technology Challenges

The draft bill contains general language authorizing the Public Printer to issue regulations 

relating to the use of developing technologies, to provide “cost-effective delivery systems for 

Government information,” and relating to the dissemination of Government publications or 

public information “in electronic forms or formats.” Such provisions would also resolve the 

ambiguity of GPO’s role in the electronic era and in general I believe they are useful. 

However, I envision our role with respect to electronics as one of cooperation and coordination 

with Congress and publishing entities, and the language in the bill should reflect this. We will 

work with you to develop language that clearly conveys this intent. 

Funding Provisions
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

13 

In testimony before this Committee last July, I summarized my views regarding concepts 

to reform GPO’s funding mechanism. Outside of the small annual appropriation we receive 

for the Superintendent of Document’s depository library, cataloging and indexing, by-law 

distribution, and international exchange programs, we are required by 44 U.S.C. 309 to 

recover all of our costs from the prices we set for our work, including costs for a number of 

functions that do not contribute to production and distribution but which every Federal agency 

is required to perform. Our printing rates must recover costs for our Inspector General’s 

office, budgeting and accounting, personnel, equal employment opportunity, health and safety, 

security, data systems, and so on. Recovering these expenses requires us to increase the prices 

of GPO’s products and services beyond their direct costs. Most agencies receive an annual 

salaries and expenses appropriation to cover these costs. With an appropriation to GPO for 

general administrative expenses, the costs charged to Congress and agencies for printing and 

related products would decrease substantially. We would like to submit language to revise 

GPO’s funding mechanism to reflect these views. With particular regard to the language in the 

draft bill under section 208, I have a great deal of uncertainty and concern over how such a 

provision, allowing committees of Congress to obtain unobligated funds appropriated to GPO, 

would work. 

Review of Agency Plants

Last July before this Committee I also discussed the need to review the operation of 

printing plants in Federal agencies. While some of the work done in these plants is justified 

(e.g., work for the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National 

Security Agency, and short run work for limited internal administrative purposes only, which 

was the reason the plants were originally established), much of it could be procured far less 

expensively. Over the past 15 years, there have been a number of studies that compared the 

cost of performing procurable printing in agency plants with the cost of purchasing it through 

GPO. Most have concluded that it is far less expensive to procure through GPO. Also, 

printing procured through GPO is automatically eligible for dissemination to the public through 

the FDLP and sales programs. A review of agency plants that results in ensuring they are 

limited to the performance of internal administrative printing that is outside the requirements 

for public distribution contained in the FDLP provisions of Title 44 would reduce the cost of 

Federal printing and improve public access to Government information through established 

dissemination programs. Language in the draft bill to direct the conduct of such a study either 

directly by GPO, or in cooperation with other entities such as the General Accounting Office, 

would establish a baseline for Federal printing operations against which improvements could be 

undertaken and measured. 

Review of Conflicting Authorities

Finally, as part of the effort to improve Federal information policy and public access but 

perhaps not necessarily as part of this specific effort to revise Title 44, I would recommend, as 

I did before this Committee last July, that Congress examine the authorities of other agencies 
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

14 

to perform printing and dissemination functions that are being used to conflict with those GPO 

is required to perform. 

During the conduct of the recent study concerning the electronic transition of the FDLP, 

the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress compiled the various statutes 

authorizing the dissemination of Government information to the public. Approximately 400 

statutes were identified, although only a handful are of real significance to GPO in terms of 

conflicting authorities (most appear to be requirements to produce and/or disseminate 

information related to specific program authorities, a feature of law that became common in the 

1960's and 1970's with the unwritten assumption that statutory information functions would be 

carried out in accordance with Title 44). The statutes that are being used to conflict with 

GPO’s responsibilities are those governing the operations of NTIS, those that authorize the 

Federal prisons to perform Government printing (Federal Prison Industries, or UNICOR), and 

laws that authorize printing for other Federal agencies by the GSA. 

In each of these cases, statutes were originally enacted for sound but limited public policy 

purposes--to provide for the dissemination of scientific and technical information resulting 

from Federal research to American business (NTIS), the use of Federal prisoners to perform 

labor-intensive work to keep them occupied (UNICOR), and the performance of administrative 

printing as a central service for Federal agencies physically located together in the field (GSA). 

 However, in recent years operations conducted under these authorities have been expanded 

beyond their original intent to conflict directly with GPO’s statutory mission. 

NTIS is using its authority to establish printing and dissemination arrangements for a wide 

range of information products, not just scientific and technical information products. UNICOR 

has invested in labor-saving, long-run printing equipment as a revenue-generating measure, 

equipment that paradoxically leads to idle rather than busy prison labor. GSA has established 

cross-servicing arrangements for its printing and duplicating plants to assist agencies in some 

cases with a wide variety of printing, expanding beyond its original central administrative 

service unit (CASU) authority. 

These operations remove work from the GPO procurement stream and frequently result in 

decreased public access when the publications are not made available to the Superintendent of 

Documents for dissemination. Some of the recommendations I have made today, such as 

removing the separation of powers problem and eliminating the exemption for cooperative 

publications, would be effective in limiting some of the activities of these organizations that 

conflict with the goals of economical production and ensuring public access. However, 

subsequent to any enactment of Title 44 reform legislation, I would recommend that Congress 

review the operation of these authorities to ensure they are staying within the original 

legislative intent. Such a review would also be a major contribution to reform of the printing 

statutes. 

Mr. Chairman, again I commend you and the Members of this Committee for undertaking 

this important project. We will provide legislative language to achieve the objectives I have 

outlined in this presentation, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to achieve a 

revision of Title 44 that will provide cost-effective and openly accessible information services 
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

15 

for Congress, Federal agencies, and the public. This concludes my prepared statement, and I 

would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 
AN-v18-#07-5/1/97 

16 

Table of Contents

Public Printer: Opening Remarks, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.............. 1 

Public Printer, Statement, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration........................ 5