ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES 

 Newsletter of the Federal Depository Library Program

Vol. 17, no. 11 GP 3.16/3-2:17/11 August 15, 1996 

GPO's Suite of Pathway Services Is Now Available 

 The Library Programs Service (LPS) at GPO is now providing a number of Pathway Services on 

the Internet via our GPO Access World Wide Web site at the following URL: 

 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces760.html> 

 Pathway Services are designed to provide a variety of useful "pathways" to anyone who uses 

Government information, and who until now may have felt they were lost in the wilderness of the 

Information Superhighway without a friendly native guide! Some of our services will be familiar 

guides, only with a new look and added functionality due to their computerization; some are 

completely new maps to a wider variety of Government services and information than ever before, 

only made possible by the online environment. A short description of each Pathway service's 

focus and intended audience follows: 

 Browse Topics classifies Government and military Internet sites under approximately 170 

subjects, based on the subject terms used in GPO's Subject Bibliographies. Also, a brief 

annotation will describe the general contents of each site. Browse Topics will be useful for anyone 

who may want an overall knowledge of what is available on the Internet from the Federal 

Government on one topic, or who may simply want guidance in identifying possible topics and 

sites for more in-depth research. 

 Browse Pathway GILS provides an alphabetical directory of Government Information Locator 

Service records prepared by LPS which describe the information policies and provisions of 

Cabinet-level and other major Federal agencies. The services include hotlinks to agency home 

pages and agency-specific information locators. Browse Pathway GILS will be useful for anyone 

who may want to locate agency-specific information sources, or who may be interested in 

contacting an agency's information specialists. 

 Browse Titles lists electronic Government information products available on Federal 

Government servers, arranged alphabetically by agency. (Titles will also have a corresponding 

SuDocs class number and item number, if they have been assigned). Listed are products which 

may have previously been in the FDLP, or new titles which are only available on the Internet. 

Browse Titles will be useful for anyone who may want an overview of Government information 

products available electronically, or who may be looking for a specific online title. 

 Search the Web contains a simple search form which will enable users to query a database of 

information collected on a regular basis from official Government sites. Be it .gov, .mil, or even 

1
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

2

part of a cooperative agreement between the Government and an outside partner, the Pathway 

Indexer will have already searched and indexed the information for you. All you have to do is type 

in search terms and you receive a list of results ranked by relevance, complete with a list of lines 

containing the search term(s) and a hotlink to the exact page you need. Search the Web will be 

useful for anyone who may want to do a very specific search on Government information. 

Pathway Indexer does what search engines like Yahoo! and AltaVista do, but we have limited it to 

index selected Federal Internet sites. 

 Search MoCat links you directly to the online Monthly Catalog search page. MoCat has always 

been a primary bibliographic tool for identifying Government information products and keeping 

track of the great range of information available in the FDLP, and naturally now it's followed them 

right out onto the Internet! The online version of the MoCat offers full-text and fielded searches 

of GPO cataloging records from 1994 onwards; it provides fielded displays of MARC cataloging, 

identifies any depository libraries which can provide access to the product, and it even hotlinks the 

user to electronic versions if available. Search MoCat will be useful for anyone who may be 

looking for a Government information product regardless of format. Paper, microfiche, CDROM or online, the MoCat can help you both find it and get it. 

 We hope you will find what you are looking for in our Pathway Services. If you need assistance 

using this service, contact the GPO Access User Support Team, by: 

 E-mail: gpoaccess@gpo.gov 

 Phone: 202-512-1530 

 Fax: 202-512-1262 

 We will be continuing to develop Pathway Services, so if you have any helpful comments or 

good suggestions as to how to improve usefulness, please don't hesitate to get in contact with 

GPO's Electronic Transition Staff by: 

 E-mail: ets@gpo.gov 

 Phone: (202)512-1698 

 Fax: (202) 512-1432 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

3

 Networking the NTDB CD-ROM

[This letter is a follow-up to the Open Letter dated June 17, 1996, published in Administrative Notes, v. 17, #9.] 

July 8, 1996 

 Several libraries have asked for network access privileges to the NTDB in advance of any 

potential arrangement with GPO. 

 In order to give the depository libraries some flexibility in their use of the NTDB CD-ROM, 

STAT-USA is offering a special, low-cost networking license to those libraries that would like to 

allow greater access to the NTDB. From now until the end of fiscal year 1996 (September 30, 

1996), STAT-USA will provide two levels of annual network licenses to Federal depository 

libraries: 

Up to 5 simultaneous users of the NTDB CD-ROM, the cost is $500.00. 

 

 For up to 15 simultaneous users, the cost is $1,000.00.

 These network license charges are very reasonable since a single, annual subscription to the 

NTDB CD-ROM costs $575. Again, this offer will only be good through the end of September. 

If you can pay by credit card, we will take the NTDB Network License order on the STAT-USA 

HelpLine at 1-800-STAT-USA (1-800-782-8872) during our normal business hours of 8:30 a.m. 

through 5:30 p.m. If you require an invoice, please use the form below. 

 The new NTDB Windows software will debut in October. The Autographics software will 

require network key file in order for multiple users to be able to use the CD-ROM. We will 

provide those keys when available. 

 We will continue to push for a comprehensive agreement with GPO and you will be contacted if 

and when an agreement goes into effect. Again, thank you for your support. 

Ken Rogers 

Director, STAT-USA 

FAX TO 202-482-2164 

Yes, I am interested in an NTDB Network License. Please send an invoice for: 

[Circle choice] 5 simultaneous users 15 simultaneous users 

to: Name: 

 Organization: 

 Address: 

 City, State, Zip: 

 Fax #: E-mail: 

Phone #: Depository Library #: 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

4
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

5

MARK YOUR CALENDARS! 

Fall Depository Library Council Meeting 

 Oct. 21-24, 1996 

Federal Depository Conference and 

Spring Depository Library Council Meeting 

April 14-17, 1997 

 You Can Help Plan the 1997 Federal Depository 

Conference

 Once again, the Library Programs Service is seeking assistance from the depository community 

to identify topics, potential agencies, speakers, and information products for the 1997 Federal 

Depository Conference. 

 The participants in the 1996 Federal Depository Conference placed the highest value on the 

Federal agency presentations especially the latest information on their electronic products and 

services. The one-hour "new documents librarians" orientation to the Conference/Council on 

Sunday afternoon and the three-hour brainstorming session with experienced documents librarians 

and GPO staff on Monday afternoon were hits as well. There was standing room only for GPO 

Access and Pathway Services demonstrations. Preservation issues, automated check-in of 

documents, and Federal statistical policy were also hot topics. 

 Your ideas are needed to create a conference as successful as the 1996 Federal Depository 

Conference. The 1997 conference, regional meeting, and Depository Library Council will be held 

in a hotel in the Washington, DC metro area during the week of April 14-17, 1997. 

 If you would like to volunteer as a speaker or can identify potential speakers or topics, please 

contact Sheila McGarr by telephone on (202) 512-1119; by fax on (202) 512-1432; or by e-mail on 

<inspect@access.digex.net> no later than October 10. 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

6

 Duncan Aldrich Joins Electronic Transition Staff

 Duncan Aldrich joined the GPO's Electronic Transition Staff (ETS) on July 1, 1996 as an expert 

consultant with the position title of Electronic Transition Specialist. Duncan will work on 

implementation of various tasks identified in the Federal Depository Library Program: 

Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996-2001, which is published as 

Exhibit 1 in GPO's Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More 

Electronic Federal Depository Library Program. Duncan will be involved in forming partnerships 

with FDLP libraries and Federal agencies to provide a distributed system for permanent access to 

Government electronic information products. 

 Duncan will return in July, 1997 to the University of Nevada, Reno, where he is head of the 

Business and Government Information Center. To contact Duncan, send e-mail to 

daldrich@gpo.gov or call him on (202) 512-1698. 

LPS Update 

Remarks by Greta Boeringer 

Before the American Association of Law Libraries 

Government Documents Special Interest Section 

Indianapolis, IN 

July 21, 1996

 As a Federal Depository Library Inspector for 4 years, I have inspected 300 depository libraries 

including 50 law libraries. I am a law librarian by trade with both law and library degrees, three 

years of professional experience, and have worked in 4 law libraries. I am dedicated to our 

profession, and I also hold a high standard for who we are and what we can do. I think law 

libraries can be the best depositories. But I also think we sometimes fall short. 

Electronic Depositories

 When I'm "on the road," documents staff constantly ask me about the electronic depository. 

When will it be here? The "Basic Collection" consists of 22 key titles that the Depository Library 

Council determined every depository should have. These titles comprise the heart and soul of 

every depository collection. All but one of these titles is now available electronically, all except the 

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. The electronic depository is here! 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

7

 By way of illustration, in fiscal year 1993, 20,755 paper titles (9.66 million copies) were 

distributed by the Library Programs Service (LPS). Between October 95-June 96, 11,081 paper 

titles were mailed (4.5 million copies) On an annualized basis, we estimate that 14,000 titles (6 

million copies) will be shipped this fiscal year. For many years, microfiche was two-thirds of our 

total distribution. In nine months of this fiscal year, it is 44%. It's here. 

 What does this mean for law libraries? Some law libraries are attracted to the Federal 

Depository Library Program (FDLP) because it appears to offer expensive paper titles for "free." 

While the information products, whether in tangible or intangible format, are without cost to you 

until they reach your door, library funds are required for equipment, staffing, cataloging, etc. A 

few of these core primary legal resources will remain in paper even though they are also available 

electronically, including the United States Code, U.S. Reports, CFR, Federal Register, Statutes at 

Large, Treaties and Other International Acts of the U.S., and Treaties in Force. (If you want 

further details, see pages E 17-18 of the strategic plan included in the final report of the Study to 

Identify Measures Necessary for the Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal 

Depository Library Program, SuDocs GP 3.2:EL 2/3/FINAL, or online at our Web site). 

 Participation in the FDLP remains relevant in the online environment because GPO is 

negotiating no-fee access for depository libraries to online government resources that are otherwise 

paid databases. A law depository will be able to provide these resources at no cost to the public. 

 In the course of inspecting all types of depositories, I have noticed that some law libraries are 

among those depositories that have not yet embraced electronic resources. This troubles me. I 

believe it is our obligation to bring no-fee law resources to the attention of our law students so that 

when they go out to practice they can offer their clients lower research costs than searching using 

commercial sources. 

 So let me take a moment to introduce you to our latest "hot" products. I recommend that any of 

you who haven't seen these stop by the GPO booth in the exhibit hall and do a test run. 

GPO Web Site

 First of all, see our Web site, the GPO home page and the SuDocs home page. From there you 

can search congressional bills, the Federal Register, Congressional Record, and other databases--so 

easy even I can do it! Soon the CFR will be added, title by title! 

 The Monthly Catalog is also on the Web site back to January 1994 containing 66,000 titles. The 

Monthly Catalog contains cataloging for a growing number of electronic titles with hot-linked 

URLs. Records appear on the Web site two days after production at OCLC. Most exciting of all, 

we have hot linked the URLs to the Monthly Catalog so you can go right to the site from the Web 

Monthly Catalog! All of GPO's cataloging should be available on the Web site within two weeks of 

your receipt of the item. 

 Speaking of the Monthly Catalog, we expect the CD-ROM version to be produced in July. It 

will cover January-June 1996 and contain the 1996 Periodicals Supplement records. Subsequent 

issues of the CD-ROM will cumulate each month. 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

8

 In case you haven't heard, Pathway Services is a suite of software tools being developed to direct 

librarians and the public to Federal Government information on the Internet. It contains "Browse 

Topics" which is Government Internet sites arranged by topic. "Browse Titles" is Government 

information products available on the Internet. The Pathways Indexer, which provides a keyword 

search of Federal Web sites, is up and running. The address is: 

<http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces760.html>. You begin by clicking on "Search the 

Web." This prototype service uses the Harvest web crawler and currently indexes a seed list of 400 

.gov and .mil sites. We know this is not all government sites and GPO staff will expand the seed 

list of sites. The crawler accepts boolean searches. TRY IT! 

 The other test product is found on the "Browse Electronic Titles." For graphically intensive titles 

that we have shipped in microfiche, we have put them on the Web. They can be viewed in any of 

three ways: text only to support ADA compliance, a PDF file using Adobe Acrobat, and JPEG 

which is a full color viewer. This is our first venture into full color electronic distribution and it is a 

test to elicit feedback on user preferences. Let us know what you think. 

 To help you keep track of new electronic titles, the "Browse Electronic Titles" page also has a 

"New Additions" page. This page is dated and lists all the new electronic titles that have been sent 

for GPO cataloging. You may want to make it a habit to check this site weekly. Classification for 

electronic titles uses the ACSIS database identification number after the colon. Soon the titles 

display will have a hot link to Monthly Catalog cataloging. 

NTDB

 You must have seen the announcement on GOVDOC-L from Ken Rogers, Director of STATUSA, that the National Trade Data Bank (NTDB) must not be mounted on a LAN. His letter will 

also appear in the July 15 issue of Administrative Notes (v. 17, #9). Please place NTDB on a 

single access work station or otherwise make it accessible by only one person at a time or purchase 

multi-user privileges from STAT-USA (recently announced by Ken Rogers on GOVDOC-L). We 

are actively negotiating with the Commerce Department to pay for additional access to this vital 

title as well as to expand depository access to the online STAT-USA. We are also negotiating with 

the Bureau of the Census for subscriptions to the electronic Data Access and Dissemination 

System for depositories. 

Acquisitions

 I think you would be impressed with the work LPS' Depository Administration Branch is doing 

to obtain electronic resources for depository libraries. Currently the focus is on retaining 

information content historically present in the Program. I am looking forward to when we can 

expand and begin including electronic Government information products beyond what has been 

available in the Program. The potential for the electronic depository library program is really quite 

grand. Be sure to look in the "Study" for the work being done on EDGAR and Federal District 

and Circuit Court reports. 

 Let me just reiterate the point I most want to make: get online with documents. Get yourself a 

connection and a Web browser and start learning about what is available from GPO's Web site. 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

9

Get a publicly accessible Internet work station as soon as possible. Be sure to include our Web 

site in all your legal research training. 

Recommended Minimum Specifications

 The "Recommended Minimum Specifications for Public Access Work Stations in Federal 

Depository Libraries," published in the May 15, 1996 issue of Administrative Notes (v. 17, #7), are 

intended to assist depository librarians who are planning purchases of new public access work 

stations capable of using most text-based FDLP electronic information products. Depository 

libraries are encouraged to adapt these specifications to fit their local situations. We cannot 

prescribe the best access for every library. Most law schools will probably be using some sort of a 

LAN, I imagine. So their equipment will be different. The public service requirement, however, 

must be met by October 1, 1996. 

Justice Department Memorandum 

 I want to touch on another interesting issue that has recently developed. Historically, GPO has 

relied heavily on the ability of the Federal Depository Library Program to automatically obtain 

material as it was printed or procured through GPO. With the growing emphasis on electronic 

dissemination, and decreasing compliance with statutory requirements for agencies to print 

through GPO, identifying and obtaining information for the FDLP is becoming increasingly 

difficult. 

 This problem has escalated significantly within the past few months with a May 31, 1996 Justice 

Department legal opinion taking the position that there are constitutional separation of powers 

issues with the legislative branch establishing requirements for the executive branch with respect to 

printing. This opinion appears to have the effect of encouraging executive branch agencies to 

bypass GPO for their printing services. This opinion seems to contradict the White House 

Memorandum signed by Leon Panetta on April 11 directing the executive branch agencies to 

maximize use of the capabilities of GPO for printing and duplicating services. Beyond the obvious 

impact of the Justice Department position on fugitive Government information, it potentially has a 

very serious impact on GPO's financial situation. 

 At its annual meeting in New York, the American Library Association's Government 

Information Subcommittee and the GODORT Legislation Committee endorsed a resolution to 

"urge agencies to continue to procure printing and high volume duplicating" through GPO; "to 

express concerns of the library community over the May 31, 1996, Dellinger memorandum that 

encourages non-compliance with existing laws;" ..."urge the Department of Justice to issue a revised 

memorandum requiring full participation and compliance with laws" relating to the FDLP; and 

finally "urge Congress to revise Title 44 U.S.C. to enact adequate enforcement mechanisms for 

agency participation and compliance in order to ensure continued identification, dissemination, 

and public access through the FDLP for government information products produced by all 

branches and agencies of the federal government." In addition, there must be effective means for 

all three branches of Government to notify GPO of the intent to initiate or publish a new 

information product in any format, or eliminate products and services. 

Inspections
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

10

 The "FDLP Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001" (pp. E 1-

14 in the final Study document) includes a change in depository library inspections. Currently we 

inspect all depository libraries in chronological order, with adjustments for climate, speaking 

engagements at meetings, and geography. The basis for inspections will revert to that specified in 

Title 44 U.S.C.§1909 which states in part "for which need is indicated." 

Self-study 

 As more Government information becomes available solely in electronic media, a 

rearrangement of the traditional obligations shared by GPO and the libraries has occurred. For 

instance, libraries or patrons are responsible for more of the printing function in the electronic 

world, while GPO is taking more responsibility for permanent access. Conducting depository 

library inspections is a resource issue as well. Some of the work performed in the course of on-site 

inspections will be shifted to the depository librarians in the form of a required self-study 

document. 

 We received the Depository Library Council endorsement for this approach in October 1994 

and published a draft self-study in the November 25, 1994 issue of Administrative Notes. 

Throughout 1995 and 1996, we have asked librarians to voluntarily complete the self-study. While 

the text is not finalized yet, we have discussed an approach to implementing the self-study that goes 

like this: 

 1.GPO will request self-studies from a group of libraries in chronological order from date of last 

inspection. 

 2.Inspectors would read and evaluate the self-studies. 

 3.A telephone interview of the librarian would take place to clarify any issues. 

 4.Based on the self-study, the interview, consultation with the Regional library, and specific 

criteria including recent staff changes, facility changes, past inspection history, and 

complaint history, GPO would determine whether an inspection is warranted. 

 5.If so, an inspection would be scheduled. Please do not think of this process as punitive or as a 

pre-judgement of your operation. Inspections are really about supporting you, helping you 

get the resources you need to do your job well, and fulfilling the requirements of the law. 

 6.We are also open to the depositories requesting an on-site inspection. 

 Those libraries which voluntarily completed self-studies found the self-assessment process 

invaluable to their operation. In many cases, procedures were tightened up, weeding and 

promotion initiated, computer equipment purchased, etc. 

 I would recommend that any of you whose depository operations were evaluated before 1991, 

review for background only the draft self-study text from Administrative Notes or from the 

GOVDOC-L archives. It can be a good tool for anyone wanting to examine their depository 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

11

operation in tandem with the Instructions to Depository Libraries, Superseded List, and the 

Federal Depository Library Manual and Supplements. A final version of the self-study will be 

completed later this summer in print and electronic form. 

 We are also putting together an FDLP administrative Web page that will have our official 

program communications on it, including Administrative Notes, the Instructions, self-study, etc. 

It's not "ready for prime time" yet. We have more coding and testing to do before we publish the 

Web address. 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

12

Readers Exchange 

New Mexico Takes a Leap

by 

Dan Barkley, Government Information Librarian 

Clark McLean, Senior Library Information Specialist 

University of New Mexico Zimmerman Library

 “Leaping into the Future with Government Information,” a celebration held February 29, 1996, 

launched New Mexico further into the electronic millennium. The University of New Mexico 

Zimmerman Library hosted this auspicious event to inaugurate the Model Gateway to GPO 

Access and to expand its leadership as a Federal depository regional library, by providing New 

Mexico with access to Federal electronic information. 

 Months of planning culminated with a festive ceremony and an interactive online demonstration 

of GPO Access. Guest speakers, staff aides representing New Mexico’s Senators Pete Domenici 

and Jeff Bingaman, President Richard Peck of the University of New Mexico (UNM) and Art 

Melendres, President of the UNM Board of Regents, commended the Library on its leadership in 

the Rio Grande Technology Corridor, which includes the National Laboratories (i.e. - Sandia and 

Los Alamos) in the state. Each speaker presented commemorative plaques to Steve Rollins, 

Interim Dean of Library Services, and Dr. Susan Deese-Roberts, Director of Public Services, who 

accepted on behalf of the Government Information Department (GID), the unit responsible for 

conducting the regional library functions. 

 The library community was well represented by distinguished guests from the other regional 

depository and selective depositories in the state. Representatives from state and tribal 

governments, businesses and the public also participated. The University’s Public Affairs office 

photographed this memorable event. One of Albuquerque’s major newspapers also gave the event 

coverage in an article that featured Dan Barkley, Monica Dorame, Barbara Gienger and Clark 

McLean, GID staff who assisted in the event’s organization. 

 The one hour event, held in the Library’s beautiful WPA southwest designed wing which was 

recently remodeled to include Internet connections, took two months of planning and 

coordinating: budgets, invitations, guest lists, speakers’ schedules, equipment and publicity. 

Everyone in GID helped with preparations including making name tags with red, white and blue 

ribbons, writing invitations in calligraphy, recording RSVPs, and ordering flowers and red, white 

and blue balloons. More than five hundred invitations were sent and the response was very 

favorable. 

 An interactive demonstration to showcase GPO Access was an important part of the ceremony. 

Preparations involved using three Pentium computers with Ethernet cards, a Liquid Crystal 

Display (LCD) panel and an overhead projector for the brief demonstration. Two computers 

were placed at the back of the room for a “hands-on” experience for the invited guests. In the 

event circumstances prevented a live Internet connection, the online presentation was saved in 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

13

advance on a floppy diskette. The demonstration highlighted searching in the Congressional 

Record for the proclamation announcing UNM’s Gateway status, the Federal Register 

announcement to show the timeliness of GPO Access and two quick searches of other databases 

on topics of local interest such as Kirtland Air Force Base in GAO Reports and Indian Grave 

Protection regulations in the Federal Register. 

 The hours spent in planning the celebration did not compare with the hours required for 

establishing GPO Access. The celebration brought together leaders from the UNM Health 

Science Center Library, UNM Law Library and the campus computing center who aided in the 

successful implementation of GPO Access. Planning discussions focused on two ways to ensure 

equitable connections to GPO Access: a text-based approach based upon UNM’s established 

gopher and a Web interface with software developed at Purdue University. Gopher access would 

provide broad public access to anyone with a computer, modem and communication software 

whether or not associated with the University of New Mexico. The Web access, with its graphical 

interface, would be available on campus or to the public with a private Internet provider. 

 Model Gateway status was as an important recognition of UNM’s leadership role in the state as a 

Federal electronic information coordinator. The partnerships formed and nurtured with this 

project have served to expand access to Government Information to all constituents. In addition, 

Dan Barkley and Clark McLean, who coordinated the grand opening with the able help of GID 

staff, have found the depository’s promotional outreach has been strengthened. As the 

Government Printing Office continues to encourage depositories to become Model Gateways, 

UNM’s experience will encourage other libraries to take a leap forward in providing expanded 

access to government information. 

University of New Mexico Zimmerman Library 

Regional Depository # 0383 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-1466 

E-mail: govref@unm.edu 

World Wide Web: http://www.unm.edu/~cmclean/govinfo.html 

Phone: (505) 277-5441 

Fax: (505) 277-6019 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

14

Michael F. DiMario 

Public Printer

Prepared Statement before the 

Committee on Rules and Administration 

U.S. Senate 

On 

Public Access to Government Information 

In the 21st Century

Wednesday, July 24, 1996

 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to present the views 

of the Government Printing Office (GPO) on public access to Government information in the 21st 

century. My views concern proposals to reform the public printing and documents statutes of Title 

44 of the U.S. Code, GPO's authorizing law. 

 For more than a century GPO has served as the Government's printer and publications 

distributor, providing prompt and economical printing and reproduction services as well as 

comprehensive and equitable dissemination of the Government's information products that have 

public interest or educational value. 

 Today, some observers are advocating a major overhaul of Title 44, but there is no consensus 

on the direction reform should take. Some want to privatize all Government printing. Others 

want to decentralize printing and distribution authority. This is the case not only with the executive 

branch, but with the House of Representatives. Still others advocate a new Federal information 

policy based principally, if not solely, on electronic technology. 

 To date, four bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives to accomplish these 

goals, in different ways, although none has emerged from committee. A draft bill to establish an 

electronic Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) has been circulated by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to several Members of Congress, including the leadership of this 

Committee, but it has not been introduced. The House Oversight Committee recently approved a 

House Document Management Plan that would essentially result in the transfer of those GPO 

congressional printing functions that support the House to the House itself. Some agencies have 

apparently decided to take matters into their own hands and have started using joint ventures with 

private sector publishers to produce their publications. As the Superintendent of Documents 

described to this Committee in the hearing on June 18, 1996, these measures are resulting in 

copyright or copyright-like restrictions on dissemination, undermining the central purpose of Title 

44 to make public information publicly available. 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

15

 Recently, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum opinion 

claiming that GPO's "extensive control" over executive branch printing and duplicating violates the 

constitutional principle of separation of powers. The opinion underscores the goal of the National 

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

 I do not agree with this opinion. I think it was wrongly decided, and I think it sends the wrong 

message to agencies and the public. GPO does not have "extensive control" over executive branch 

printing. We perform an administrative function to ensure that executive branch printing is 

performed economically and in the interests of the taxpayer, and to ensure that the publications 

are made available to the public on a comprehensive and equitable basis. By signaling that the 

Justice Department will not uphold the law, the message is being sent that there is no need for 

economy in public printing, and that providing effective public access is a secondary concern. 

 In September 1994, the Administration reached an agreement with Congress to maintain the 

status quo regarding printing and duplicating arrangements for fiscal year 1995 until the leadership 

of the congressional committees of jurisdiction and the Administration worked out a legislative 

approach to reform Federal printing. It specified a number of policies, including that all printing 

procurement should be conducted through GPO to the extent required by law, that existing agency 

in-plant operations could continue but not expand, and that all publications required by law should 

be made available to the FDLP. Because no new legislative approach was developed, in April 

1996 the White House Chief of Staff issued a memorandum that substantively reiterated the 

September 1994 agreement for the ensuing 12 months. I think this is a far more constructive 

approach to a possible reform of Title 44 than the one taken by the Justice Department. 

 Simply because a law has been on the books for many years does not mean that it is a "painful 

anachronism," as one witness recently remarked to this Committee. I agree that there is room for 

improvement to the statutes. I am well aware of the views of GPO's critics, and I agree that we 

need to take the opportunity now to make changes that will address these concerns, to the extent 

the changes do not conflict with the overall goal of achieving taxpayer savings and promoting public 

access. But I do not think that a sweeping overhaul of the laws is necessary or even desirable to 

achieve this. I think many changes can be accommodated within the current general structure of 

the law. 

 To those who want to privatize, I would remind them that GPO has moved between 75 and 80 

percent of all printing we handle out the door to private contractors without changing the law. If 

Congress decides it wants the Congressional Record and other legislative documents turned over 

to the private sector, the law would not have to be changed, although Congress would have to be 

prepared to pay more and to relinquish a considerable amount of control. 

 While some changes to reflect the impact of electronic information technology are needed, I 

also think technology poses less of a challenge to Title 44 than the conventional wisdom suggests. 

Within the structure of the current law, we completely converted GPO's prepress processes to 

electronics, increasing productivity and lowering costs. That conversion made a vast amount of 

downsizing possible. Twenty-two years ago there were more than 8,600 employees at GPO, with 

more than 1,000 in our composition division; today there are about 3,800, with fewer than 500 

involved with prepress work. With the move to direct-to-plate technology, there will be even fewer 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

16

involved with prepress. The conversion also made it possible for GPO to move directly into CDROM premastering and online dissemination without massive development costs. 

 The nature of printing itself has changed dramatically over the past two decades. GPO has not 

only kept up with those changes but helped to lead many of them. We are continuing to change 

the nature of our operations, as our fiber optic links with Capitol Hill, our assistance to agency 

publishers and printers, and our training programs for agency personnel all demonstrate. This 

progress has been and can continue to be accomplished within the structure of the current law. 

 The single most important change to Title 44 we have needed was statutory clarification of our 

role in electronic information dissemination, and that was achieved, through the leadership of this 

Committee, with the passage of the GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 

1993 (P.L. 103-40). That law requires us to provide online versions of the Congressional Record 

and the Federal Register, and to work with Federal agencies to provide other information online. I 

think this was a wise way to structure GPO's electronic information dissemination authority, and 

experience is proving that point. Our implementation of the GPO Access service, which now is 

used by more than 2 million people every month, has shown that GPO can successfully participate 

in the electronic dissemination arena. We make a large volume of congressional information 

available, and an increasing number of executive agencies are approaching us to offer their 

products and to mount their Government Information Locator Service (GILS) records on the 

Access service. 

 As the recently concluded "Study to Identify Measures Necessary For a Successful Transition to 

a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program" found, the Access service can now be 

used as the platform to move the FDLP into the electronic future, representing a major step 

forward in Federal information dissemination policy. Some adjustments to chapter 19 of Title 44 

are needed to facilitate the transition, but I do not think that electronic technology itself necessarily 

spells the end of Title 44. As the FDLP study concluded, there is an important role for a 

centralized entity in a distributed system to assist the public in standardizing information, providing 

locator and pathway services, and coordinating permanent access. 

 There are other changes that could be made to the law to address specific requirements. I think 

the transfer of certain JCP authorities to the Public Printer would obviate the Justice Department's 

constitutional concerns. A change in GPO's funding mechanism to allow us to finance general 

administrative expenses from appropriations rather than through cost-recovery from our customers 

would put us on an equal footing with the way other agencies are financed and reduce printing 

charges to Congress and agencies. Limited changes to our sales authority, such as increasing our 

discount authority, would allow us to manage the sales program more effectively. GPO's name 

should be changed to recognize our involvement with a broad range of information dissemination 

strategies, and outdated or archaic provisions of the law--such as references to stereotype plates--

should be dispensed with. 

 But the principal structure of Title 44--a centrally managed printing, printing procurement, and 

documents dissemination capability, providing localized service through a nationwide network of 

procurement offices, bookstores, and other operations--should remain in place. It simply saves 

too much money for the taxpayers and performs too valuable a service for public access to be 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

17

done away with. In none of the proposals for change that have been offered to date are there the 

kind of benefits that Title 44 and GPO currently provide. 

 In our production plant, Congress has direct control over a cost-effective system for obtaining 

printing that is essential to the orderly conduct of legislative business. In our Printing Procurement 

Program, which works directly with the printing industry, the agencies have immediate access to 

one of the Government's most successful public sector/private sector partnerships for obtaining 

their printing needs at highly competitive prices. In GPO's Superintendent of Documents 

programs, the public has a single, highly visible system to provide comprehensive and equitable 

access to the vast wealth of information produced by the Government in both print and electronic 

format through depository libraries and over the Internet as well as through our sales program. 

Under the proposals I have seen to date, many of these benefits would be reduced if not lost. 

 With the growing use of electronics, there is the temptation to say that the Government no 

longer needs a printing capability. I think this temptation should be resisted. Last year, we 

produced over $800 million in printing services (and that is only about half of all the printing the 

Government produces), sold some $80 million worth of documents, and distributed tens of 

thousands of titles to depository libraries. We measured the printing of congressional publications 

alone at approximately 2 billion units, or copy-pages. Tax forms, press releases, passports, 

informational pamphlets and books, regulations, statutes, statistical data, and more--in printed form 

these documents represent a major avenue of communication between the Government and the 

public. 

 Moreover, printing remains an effective safeguard for ensuring that those without access to 

computers--and there are many--can still use Government information, and for guaranteeing 

permanence. The transition to full electronics is certainly coming, but it is a long way off. We 

need to manage that transition effectively, and maintaining a cost-effective printing and 

dissemination capability for the foreseeable future gives us an important management tool. 

 A major issue confronting Title 44 is a failure on the part of executive branch agencies to 

comply with the law. This Committee has already heard testimony on the consequences of 

increased agency control over their publications from GPO's Superintendent of Documents. 

Another problem is the growth of under-utilized capacity in agency plants, and the natural 

tendency of agencies to try to keep that capacity occupied with work which otherwise should be 

procured through GPO. To ensure taxpayer savings and equitable public access requires vigilance 

by Congress over the performance of agency printing and dissemination capabilities. This hearing 

is a good example of what I am talking about. 

 There are other things Congress can do. It can require a review of executive agency printing 

plants. The review should not necessarily be designed to close down all agency printing capacity, 

as the printing industry has suggested. We know that there is a need in the agencies for a capability 

to produce quick turnaround printing to support administrative operations, and we do not have a 

problem with that. We also do not have a problem with certain agencies, such as the national 

security agencies, having the authority to produce their own printing in-plant when doing so is 

clearly in the national or public interest. 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

18

 The problem comes when capability established for simple internal administrative purposes is 

expanded to produce printing needs that are more cost-effectively performed through GPO's 

procurement program, and when agencies fail or refuse to provide publications produced 

internally for public distribution through GPO's programs. The objective of a review--and it could 

be conducted by OMB as well as Congress--should be to ensure that agencies are equipped with 

only the capacity necessary to fulfill either their own limited administrative needs or, as in the case 

of the General Services Administration (GSA), to support the limited internal administrative needs 

of multiple agencies grouped in close physical proximity through the central administrative support 

unit (CASU) or similar concept. GPO can assist in this review. Congress should also review the 

way some agencies have expanded their limited authorities, gained either through statute or by 

waivers from the JCP, into significant printing and dissemination operations that undermine the 

letter and spirit of Title 44. 

 In summary, I urge this Committee to critically examine the various proposals to amend Title 44 

that have been advanced to date and to balance them against the public benefits that Title 44 

currently achieves. Congress took a positive step forward when it enacted the "panoply of reforms," 

as one observer has put it, that constitute the current public printing and documents statutes. 

There are changes that can be made within the structure of Title 44 that would be responsive to 

many of the concerns that have been raised, but care needs to be taken that they do not cancel out 

the benefits achieved by the current system. 

 PRIVATIZATION PROPOSALS

 I testified on current privatization proposals, contained principally in H.R. 1024, before the 

House Oversight Committee on August 1, 1995. As I stated at that time, between 75 and 80 

percent of GPO printing is already contracted out; privatization proposals target congressional 

printing primarily. Privatizing congressional printing would have a strong potential for leading to 

increased costs. Congress's control over its printing is also likely to be compromised. 

 Earlier, on February 2, 1995, in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Legislative 

Appropriations, former Public Printer Thomas McCormick, appointed by President Nixon, and 

former Public Printer John Boyle, appointed by President Carter, both disagreed that the concept 

of privatizing the printing GPO performs for Congress would generate savings. 

Procurement of Congressional Printing

 GPO fully supports the procurement of printing that is commercially procurable, e.g., 

purchasable from the private sector on the same terms (timeliness, quality, and control) at less cost. 

 However, based on long experience with Government printing, we have serious concerns about 

whether any savings can be achieved by procuring congressional printing. We also have concerns 

about the level of control that could be retained over printing that is essential to the legislative 

process if it is commercially procured. 

 It has yet to be established that Congress can procure items such as the Congressional Record 

and related products from the private sector on the same terms as it now receives them, at reduced 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

19

cost. The historical record, although dated, shows the opposite: that when the production of 

congressional work was removed from the private sector and turned over to the newly created 

GPO, Congress realized immediate and lasting savings on printing production. 

 The House recently voted to require GPO to study privatizing the Congressional Record and 

the Federal Register. The study, however, will not be able to fully disclose what a private sector 

contractor's costs would likely be. Without a clear decision by Congress to procure congressional 

work and the consequent expectation by potential contractors that they will be held financially and 

legally responsible for performing the work under the estimates they have submitted, any such cost 

estimate should be regarded as speculative. 

 The volume of congressional printing would preclude all but a few of the very largest printing 

firms in the United States from competing for this work, since the average firm employs just 20 

people, according to printing industry estimates. Widespread competition for Government 

printing jobs is a key factor to achieving any savings in printing procurement. Without such 

competition, the potential to achieve savings from the procurement of congressional work is not 

likely, and in fact the costs of this printing would most likely rise above current levels. 

 If the sense is to break up congressional printing jobs and parse out this work to a wide variety of 

printers, economies made achievable by the consolidated operation of GPO's electronic prepress 

systems are likely to be overtaken by the increased administrative burden of managing multiple 

procured jobs among multiple contractors. The control of congressional printing would also be a 

problem under such conditions. Some observers have suggested that by changing the delivery 

requirements of congressional printing, it could be procurable. That is probably true, but changing 

those requirements would also substantially lower GPO's production costs as well. 

Comparison of GPO and Private Sector Costs

 GPO performs congressional printing at cost, while a contractor would charge cost plus a 

percentage for profit. There are allegations that GPO's costs are too high for the services 

performed, but these allegations are usually made within the context of comparing average printers' 

wages drawn from around the Nation to the wages paid to GPO employees in the Washington, 

DC, area. 

 These comparisons often reveal a great deal less than they purport to. GPO is not comparable 

to any other printing firm in the United States, based first on the types of work GPO is required to 

do (book and job work, newspaper printing, and a wide range of other work). Most printers 

specialize in one kind of work; GPO must maintain expertise in many. As a Government agency, 

GPO is required by law and regulation to maintain many expensive programs and operations 

(Inspector General, EEO, etc.) that private sector companies are not required to have. GPO's 

employees are entitled by law to organize and have union representation. Most private sector 

companies, because of their size, are unorganized. 

 Compared to other organized workplaces in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area (one of the 

highest cost-of-living areas in the Nation), GPO's wages are not wholly out of line. Compositors' 

wages at the Washington Post for both day and night shifts, for example, when averaged against 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

20

GPO's are in fact slightly higher; this fact needs to be weighed against data indicating that an 

average issue of the Congressional Record contains 4 to 6 times the amount of type as in an 

average metropolitan daily newspaper. Wage comparisons for press and bindery work with other 

area printing wage contracts also indicate much smaller disparities than has been alleged. The 

charge that GPO's costs are wholly out of line with costs in the printing industry in general needs to 

be balanced against these factors. 

Comparison of the Congressional Record to a Newspaper

 There is little realistic comparability between the production of the Congressional Record and 

the average newspaper, regardless of the newspaper's delivery system. A large metropolitan daily 

newspaper will run approximately 60 pages each day, and may vary from 48 to 72 pages, a much 

more tightly defined and consistent variation from the median than the Record. With the 

exception of front pages held open for late breaking news, a daily newspaper follows a schedule of 

rigid and consistent deadlines. Most ad space, which takes up a vast amount of newspaper space, 

is preset, and journalists are frequently assigned column inches for their stories. As noted above, 

the average Record contains 4 to 6 times the amount of type as the average metropolitan daily 

newspaper, which contains a high percentage of camera copy ads, photos, and other work. 

 A variety of unique and complex requirements drive the production of the Congressional 

Record. GPO must print everything that happens on the floor of Congress each day in the 

Record, regardless of whether the printing totals 16 pages or 400 pages. We cannot assign column 

inches to Members; if a Member speaks at any length on a subject, if a Senator conducts a 

filibuster, GPO must print every word spoken. The printing cannot occur until Members have 

had a chance to "revise and extend" their remarks, as is their privilege. This frequently adds new 

material to be printed, much of which has not been captured electronically, such as newspaper 

articles and clippings. The Record must contain additional materials, such as the Daily Digest, that 

can be compiled only when the day's proceedings are ended. Print production cannot take place 

until Congress has adjourned for the day or GPO makes a decision to cut the proceedings so that 

at least some portion of the Record will be available when the Members reconvene. In all of these 

respects, the production of the Record is significantly different from the production of a 

newspaper. Indeed, apart from the fact that both products are printed on newsprint, there is little 

similarity at all. 

Desirability of Procuring Congressional Printing

 The overriding question that needs to be addressed is the desirability of contracting out printing 

needs which are essential to the conduct of the Nation's legislative business. Within the context of 

history, this represents less a movement toward reform than it does a revisitation of the past, when 

congressional printing was the exclusive province of private printers. 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

21

 As history discloses, contractors frequently failed to perform on time or even to complete the 

work, and generated enormous costs (for their time). Congress remedied these problems with the 

creation of the GPO in close physical proximity and under close congressional scrutiny. 

 Government performance of this critical work also parallels the performance by many other 

governments of their legislative printing both among the 50 States and around the world. 

 GPO has taken a variety of measures, including equipment back-ups, personnel contingency 

plans, and paper storage, to ensure that congressional work is delivered on time when it is needed. 

 GPO has inclement weather emergency plans to ensure the plant is always staffed and operating 

when Congress is in session, and a variety of security measures are in place to prevent the 

unauthorized disclosure of highly important congressional work. In November 1995, at the 

specific request of the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

GPO kept its production staff on duty during the Government-wide budget shutdown to provide 

essential printing services. As will be recalled, most Government contractors were forced to cease 

operations during the budget shutdown due to lack of funding authority by the contracting agencies 

to continue operations. These factors must be weighed in any decision to remove the 

responsibility for this critical work from GPO. 

House Document Management Plan

 Recently, the House Oversight Committee approved a House Document Management Plan. 

The specific objective of this plan is to "decrease our reliance on GPO." In the resolution 

approving this plan, House officials are directed to work with GPO to develop a document 

management system, and we will provide all possible assistance. We are concerned, however, that 

this plan undermines the capability already resident in GPO to support all congressional printing. 

 The premise of the plan to provide the House with an electronic document management 

capability appears to overlook the initiatives GPO is undertaking to provide increased electronic 

document capabilities for all of Congress, particularly through the conversion of all congressional 

documents to Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). The plan apparently would rely 

on congressional staff for document inputting, formatting, and management, despite recent 

reductions in congressional staff. Also, the high turnover rate for congressional staff would tend to 

work against the effectiveness of training efforts to operate the document management system. It is 

unclear from the plan what would happen to existing electronic interfaces with the Appropriations 

Committee, the House Office of Legislative Counsel, House Information Resources, and the 

Office of Law Revision Counsel. 

 Where public dissemination is concerned, the document management system apparently would 

utilize the Library of Congress's THOMAS information system, leaving in question the provision 

of access to key House documents, including the House portion of the Congressional Record, 

through GPO's Access service, which is required by law to provide public online access to the 

Record. 

 NATIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

22

 The concept of decentralizing Government, both the management and the conduct of printing 

authority, to Federal agencies has a number of problems. On February 3, 1994, I testified before 

this Committee on proposals by the NPR to "reinvent" public printing by decentralizing authority, 

stating that they would have negative impacts on costs and public access. I was joined in this view 

by the representatives of the printing industry and the library community. 

 Earlier, during the 103d Congress, the House considered legislation that essentially would have 

implemented the recommendations of the NPR with respect to GPO. The recommendations 

were amended substantially before they were passed by the House, however, and the Senate did 

not take them up. 

"Monopoly" Characterization is Inaccurate

 Proposals for decentralizing Government printing in the executive branch are targeted at ending 

GPO's so-called "monopoly" on Government printing. However, a monopoly confers on an 

organization the means to exercise exclusive control over the provision of a specific commodity. 

GPO cannot be accurately characterized as exercising this kind of control over Government 

printing. 

 GPO is not the only organization providing Government printing. Only half of all Government 

printing, as measured by OMB in the U.S. Budget, is produced by or through GPO. There are at 

least 145 printing plants operated by other Federal agencies under the authority of waivers 

originally issued by the JCP pursuant to Title 44. In addition, agencies most likely also operate a 

number of other printing and duplicating facilities, as OMB has found in the past. Title 44 (and to 

a limited extent other legislation in section 207 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act) 

contains provisions for agencies to contract for their own printing, and there are also a number of 

agencies, such as the national security agencies, that are authorized by law to perform their own 

printing. The claim that GPO is a "monopoly," therefore, has no basis in fact. 

 It also has no basis because exclusive control over printing prices is denied to GPO in the area 

of printing procurement. The prices of the work performed by thousands of commercial printers 

for GPO are determined by the competitive forces of the marketplace, not by GPO, which adds 

only a marginal surcharge to cover the costs of procurement services. Most executive branch 

printing sent to GPO is purchased from the private sector, subjecting the vast majority of all 

Government printing to intensely competitive economic forces rather than any kind of 

monopolistic control. 

 Finally, the way we conduct business for executive branch customers undermines the claim that 

GPO is a "monopoly." GPO's mission is to fulfill the customer's printing needs. To do so we 

provide a capability to produce over 100 different products and services ("books" alone constitute 

only one such product category), and we maintain an extensive equipment line, a sophisticated 

range of graphic design services, a highly trained production and procurement workforce, a master 

bid list of a vastly diversified range of printing providers in the private sector, and specialists in 

marketing, sales, and other Government information mechanisms to help meet agency printing 

and dissemination requirements. The capability to provide such a diversified range of products 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

23

and services--regardless of how uneconomical some of these capabilities may occasionally be to 

maintain--is not the hallmark of a monopoly, which typically bends customer demand to suit its 

needs. 

Comparison of GPO and GSA as Procurement Models

 The question has been raised whether agencies might not be better off procuring their own 

printing, just as they are able to procure items that they formerly were required to obtain through 

the GSA. However, the use of GSA as a model for comparison to GPO's procurement operation 

has a number of limitations. 

 GSA uses the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in conducting procurements. GPO utilizes 

its own Printing Procurement Regulation (PPR), which ensures a greater degree of flexibility and 

timeliness in printing procurements than the FAR. GSA buys "off-the-shelf" items, some of which 

are relatively easy to obtain through other channels. GPO, by contrast, is involved only in the 

procurement of printing, which is essentially a custom product since the specifications of each job 

vary widely, and it must be timely to have value. 

 Buying printing is not like buying paper clips. A knowledge of printing requirements and 

processes is essential to ensuring the best possible value. GPO printing specifications are 

developed by knowledgeable printing experts. There are cases in which agencies have ended up 

paying exorbitant prices for printing they have procured themselves. For example, the national 

news media recently reported that the Department of Labor incurred a $30,000 printing bill for 

copying services that would have cost approximately one-tenth that amount if procured with the 

same requirements through GPO, and approximately $500 if procured through GPO utilizing 

GPO-recommended cost-saving measures. Thus, comparing GSA's operation, which buys many 

things, with GPO's, which buys only printing, does not fully address the possible impacts of 

decentralizing printing procurement authority back to Federal agencies. 

 The decentralization of printing procurement authority is likely to significantly increase the costs 

of Federal printing. With such authority, agencies are likely to choose to produce much of their 

printing in-house, which several studies have shown is more expensive than procuring printing 

from the private sector. For those agencies that choose to procure printing, increased costs are 

also likely. It would be extremely costly for each agency to maintain the range of procurement 

services that GPO provides. GPO maintains a significant universe of competitors (10,000 private 

sector printers) that would be difficult for each agency to maintain. Without it, competition would 

decrease and prices would be likely to rise. In an environment of reduced competition, there are 

also likely to be increased opportunities for favoritism and corruption in Federal printing, twin evils 

the GPO was originally established to prevent. 

 GPO offers "one-stop-shopping" to printing contractors. Without it, the contractors would be 

compelled to increase their sales forces to search for contracting opportunities among multiple 

agencies, which would increase printing costs. They would also confront the difficulties imposed 

by having to deal with a multitude of solicitation formats, a problem that is overcome by GPO's 

standardized procurement solicitation packages. GPO offers a package of contracting services. 

We review requisitions and offer suggestions for economizing; develop specifications; compete, 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

24

award, and administer contracts; perform press inspections and other on-site reviews to assure 

quality; perform quality control reviews utilizing a unique program that quantifies quality ranking 

factors that has become widely recognized throughout the industry; provide voucher examination 

and payment services; provide legal advice on contracting and make available a dispute resolution 

service through GPO's Board of Contract Appeals. For every agency to provide a similar scope of 

services would result in increased printing costs. 

 In a centralized procurement system, GPO can ensure that Federal printing procurements are 

conducted in concert with pertinent statutory requirements, such as requirements for the use of 

recycled paper and vegetable inks, and can ensure that printed products are placed in the 

appropriate dissemination programs, such as the FDLP. For these reasons, a decentralized 

printing procurement program has several distinct disadvantages. 

Justice Department Opinion

 I do not concur with the view of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel that 

GPO has an "extensive control" over executive branch printing that renders our operations 

unconstitutional. We handle executive work in a purely ministerial capacity. We cannot refuse to 

fulfill an executive branch requisition for printing. We have no control over the editorial or 

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

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

the comprehensive and equitable dissemination of Government information to the public through 

copies of publications purchased with GPO funds. 

 These functions are performed under the authority of the Public Printer who, like members of 

the Cabinet, heads of executive branch agencies, and other high level Federal officials, is appointed 

by the President and confirmed by the Senate and serves solely at the pleasure of the President. 

 Under the law, the Public Printer maintains no veto authority over executive branch work. This 

view was expressed in a September 13, 1993, memorandum of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel. 

At that time, the Office of Legal Counsel said that the requirement contained in section 207 of the 

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act [which was re-enacted and is currently at P.L. 103-283] for 

agencies to procure printing by or through GPO: 

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

not give the GPO 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. 

 A March 11, 1994, memorandum of the Office of Legal Counsel reaffirmed this position. Since 

there have been no procedural changes or statutory modifications of any substance in this area of 

the law since that time, GPO's general counsel has requested the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel to 

reconsider this matter. We have also referred the Justice Department's memorandum to the 

general counsel of the GAO, which in a September 30, 1994, letter to then-JCP Chairman Ford 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

25

held that contractors performing printing work directly for Federal agencies outside the authority 

of Title 44 and section 207 may not be paid from appropriated funds. 

 If the Justice Department's memorandum were followed, it would have strongly negative 

consequences for Government printing. Approximately 90 percent of all printing work performed 

by GPO is for the executive branch. Approximately two-thirds of all publications in the FDLP are 

executive branch publications, as are about 90 percent of all sales program publications. Assuming 

that executive branch printing policy would be characterized by decentralization as recommended 

by the NPR, the removal of executive branch printing from GPO would increase the cost of 

Government printing significantly. It would also increase the cost and reduce both the 

comprehensiveness and equity of current publications distribution policies, such as the FDLP, 

undercutting the congressional appropriations made for that purpose. 

 In July 1994, when President Clinton signed the requirement into law that the procurement of 

all printing, including duplicating, must with certain exceptions be performed through GPO, he 

expressed an intention to work toward Government printing reform. Subsequently, congressional 

leaders and representatives of the Administration worked out an agreement to maintain the status 

quo under Title 44 for the ensuing year while they worked together to produce a plan for Title 44 

reform. 

 Under this agreement, they stated that agencies would: (1) use procurement as the preferred 

method of fulfilling printing requirements; (2) conduct all printing procurement through GPO to 

the extent required by law; (3) continue normal operation of existing agency in-plant facilities 

without expansion; (4) continue to carry out plans to downsize in-plant capacity; and (5) ensure that 

all Government publications as defined in Title 44 are made available to the FDLP. The 

agreement was communicated to the heads of all executive branch departments and agencies in a 

memorandum dated September 19, 1994, by the Director of OMB, who stated that "agency 

compliance with these policies, and cooperation with congressional oversight, is essential to the 

ultimate success of a comprehensive initiative to reform Government printing." 

 On April 11, 1996, the White House Chief of Staff reiterated this agreement and its specifics in 

another memorandum to the heads of departments and agencies. This approach provides a far 

more constructive basis for reforming Title 44, one that emphasizes taxpayer savings and ensures 

public access, than the approach taken by the Justice Department. 

 ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY

 Where electronic information technology is concerned, there is a view among some observers 

that GPO's activities should be restricted to print formats and that we should have no role in 

electronic dissemination. However, there are strong reasons for arguing that effective public access 

to electronic Government information should involve rather than exclude GPO. 

 GPO in fact already plays a significant and successful role in the electronic dissemination of 

Government information. For several years we have been a leading Government producer of CDROM. In 1992, we received the annual award of the Special Interest Group for CD-ROM 

Applications and Technology (SIGCAT), the largest CD-ROM user group in the world. In 1993, 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

26

the GAO cited our CD-ROM program as one of the most cost-effective in the Government, 

specifically noting that GPO's CD-ROM products are among the least expensive for users. That 

same year, Congress enacted the GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act (P.L. 

103-40). The act mandated GPO to provide online versions of the Congressional Record and 

Federal Register and authorized the Superintendent of Documents to work with Congress and 

Federal agencies to put additional information online. 

 The implementation of P.L. 103-40 has been enormously successful. Since we made the GPO 

Access service free to all users last December, we have averaged more than 2 million document 

downloads per month, and the number is growing; in June 1996, it reached 2.5 million. The 

service, which is now accessible through GPO's home page on the World Wide Web 

(http://www.access.gpo.gov), currently features 58 databases, including a variety of agency GILS 

records, and it continues to grow. Some of the databases we prepare for GPO Access are also 

utilized by the Library of Congress for its THOMAS information service and by House 

Information Resources. 

 P.L. 103-40 statutorily recognized an electronic information role for GPO that we had been 

seeking for some time. The results of its implementation confirm that GPO can participate 

effectively in the electronic information dissemination arena. We just concluded a major study of 

how to convert the FDLP to a predominately electronic basis involving a broad range of 

participants from both the Government and the library and information communities. Among 

other things, the study found strong support for having a single entity in the Superintendent of 

Documents to coordinate library-related information dissemination activities in the electronic era. 

Electronic Technology in Support of the Printing Process

 GPO is often mistakenly characterized as an outmoded printer, when in fact the technologies 

used in the central office plant are state-of-the-art. GPO pioneered electronic prepress 

technologies in the Federal Government, and indeed throughout most of the printing industry, 

beginning in the 1960's. By the late 1970's, the production of most congressional publications had 

been converted to electronics, and in the early 1980's GPO concluded its phase-out of hot metal 

typesetting. Since then, GPO has gone through successive generations of automated composition 

technologies, each more powerful and less expensive than its predecessor. 

 Today, GPO's electronic prepress systems are characterized by a complex of direct electronic 

fiber optic linkages to a variety of congressional offices on Capitol Hill for data interchange. Since 

1985, GPO has been connected to Congress with a 24-line fiber optic network. Only 6 of the lines 

are in use, but GPO deliberately oversized the network to handle Congress's expanding needs for 

electronic interchange. 

 Using this network, GPO currently receives a portion of Senate proceedings for the 

Congressional Record directly via fiber optic transmission, and we have begun receiving input from 

the House. Drafts of legislation destined to be introduced are received electronically from the 

Senate and House Offices of Legislative Counsel; the input is stored at GPO and can be accessed 

directly back on Capitol Hill for redrafting. A significant number of congressional committees are 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

27

also linked directly with GPO's prepress systems for the preparation of hearings, committee prints, 

and other documents. 

 GPO's electronic systems make it possible to manipulate data and convey it from one 

publication to another, a capability that saves time, effort, and money. With this capability, bills, 

reports, and other documents can be conveyed for production in the Congressional Record, as 

required by congressional rules, without the need to rekey the data. Once inputted, the data from 

GPO's composition systems can also be converted for production in multiple media, including 

print, CD-ROM, and online access. 

 GPO's electronic data capabilities are unique because of format standardization and the volume 

of its database storage capacity. Currently, GPO has 21 gigabytes of online storage, most of which 

is protected by RAID 5 technology, and an additional 120 gigabytes of near-line optical disk 

storage in the form of an 88-disk juke box. A second juke box ensures data protection. GPO's 

WAIS databases reside on a computer with 27.5 gigabytes of online storage. All databases are 

backed up regularly to ensure reliability. 

 With the increasing productivity of electronic information technologies supporting its printing 

systems, GPO has made significant strides forward in reducing the costs of congressional printing. 

In the past two decades, GPO's workforce has declined by more than 50 percent, virtually all of 

the reduction due to technology. 

 At the same time, costs have come down. Discounted for inflation, the cost per page of 

producing the Congressional Record is today only two thirds of what it was before the Record was 

converted to electronic prepress production, and we just recently reduced the Congressional 

Record page rate by 7 percent, primarily due to technology improvements. Similar savings have 

been achieved on other congressional products. As a result, for the past decade GPO has been 

able to hold a relatively flat line on appropriations for congressional printing. Continued 

technology upgrades, in addition to new technology approaches where appropriate, will continue 

to provide Congress with the best information services possible. 

 The Senate's print-on-demand capability is a good example of how electronic technologies have 

been used by GPO to satisfy a customer requirement for localized service. Two years ago, a joint 

effort of the Secretary of the Senate, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, this Committee, the JCP, and 

GPO was launched to provide a print-on-demand capability for the Senate Document Room. An 

electronic printing system was provided by the Senate and linked by fiber optic cables to GPO's 

automated prepress systems in the central office plant. GPO provides staff to operate the system 

for the Senate. 

 The print-on-demand capability now permits copies of bills, resolutions, and other official 

documents to be communicated electronically directly from databases resident at GPO to the 

Documents Room, where the exact number of copies needed can be produced on the spot. It 

also makes possible a reduction in the volume of copies that are originally printed at GPO, 

reducing printing costs, and it also reduces the paper storage and inventory requirements for the 

Documents Room. 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

28

Electronic Support for the Procurement Process

 Electronic technology is also being used to improve the printing procurement process. 

Electronic versions of printing procurement bid solicitations are now accessible from the Internet 

via GPO's World Wide Web home page. We are currently posting solicitations from the central 

office and from a regional office in Hampton, VA, and we want to expand these postings to all 

regional offices. We estimate that less than $1,500 in programming was spent developing the 

system capability for making these solicitations available on GPO's home page. These costs were 

absorbed by current staff and no out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. 

 GPO did not need to undertake a large-scale effort to develop a system for electronically posting 

copies of bid solicitations. We developed our World Wide Web page originally as part of our 

mission to electronically disseminate Federal documents mandated by P.L. 103-40. To post bid 

solicitations, we simply added another electronic link to a printing procurement web page 

containing a list of currently available bid solicitations. A user need only click on the name of the 

desired document to initiate a download of the full text of the document. The technical expertise, 

as well as the computer hardware and software needed to accomplish this, was already in place. 

 The electronic posting of bid solicitations benefits the Government in several ways. First, it 

allows the GPO to reduce the cost of making this information available to the public. The 

estimated cost of preparing a typical multipaged bid solicitation for the web page is less than $1.00 

per document. This cost is expected to drop further, because once a GPO term contract or other 

solicitation has been tagged it will not need to be tagged again when it is renewed. Approximately 

90 percent of all term contracts are renewed. Making paper copies of solicitations available in 

response to walk-in and telephone requests is more expensive, ranging from $1.13 to $4.66. 

 Posting bid solicitations electronically also has the benefit of enabling more contractors to bid on 

Government printing Jobs, thereby increasing competition and lowering procurement costs. 

Printed versions of bid solicitations are available to potential contractors and the public free of 

charge at any GPO bid room. However, only a limited number of copies are printed and, as a 

practical matter, access is limited to those printers located near GPO facilities. Other potential 

bidders therefore cannot gain ready access to bid opportunities except through reliance on 

proprietary bid services. Thus, for the vast majority of GPO contractors, most of whom are small 

businesses, the opportunities to review GPO bid solicitations are limited. 

 By posting electronic versions of these documents on the Internet, all potential bidders, even 

remotely located small businesses, will have immediate access to additional bid opportunities. We 

have found that increasing the dissemination of formal bid solicitations results in more contractors 

submitting bids. The increase in competition also results in a decrease in contract prices, lowering 

the overall cost to the Government for printing. 

 GPO's electronic posting initiative has generated considerable interest and enthusiasm in the 

printing industry. It has been praised by the Printing Industries of America, Inc., and by the GPO 

Contractors Coalition. In addition to the trade groups, individual printers have contacted GPO, 

both in writing and electronically, to voice their support for the program. 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

29

 It is clear that the Federal Government will begin to rely more heavily on electronic commerce 

to meet its procurement needs. In October 1993, Executive Order No. 12,864 directed the 

Federal Government to explore and use electronic commerce in Federal procurement. This was 

followed by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-355), which mandated, 

among other things, that the Federal Government begin using a computer network to disseminate 

solicitations in order to make Federal procurement more flexible, responsive, and timely. GPO's 

electronic posting of procurement solicitations is one way that we are using electronic commerce 

measures, consistent with the intent of both Administration and congressional efforts to streamline 

the Federal procurement process. 

 We are also using electronic funds transfer to pay those contractors who can receive payments 

electronically, and we are currently developing a pilot project with the Defense Printing Service to 

accept print orders filed electronically. In the future, we envision posting small purchases on the 

Internet and receiving price quotations electronically. 

 These and related developments can only be accomplished through office automation 

improvements in GPO's Printing Procurement Department. We currently have a request before 

the JCP to equip our procurement offices with computers, servers, and software. This equipment 

would end the Department's reliance on an obsolete mainframe-based system, reduce computer 

and telecommunications costs, and improve communications Department-wide and with customer 

agencies and contractors. The capabilities of this system could be used to implement additional 

electronic commerce initiatives that will increase competition, improve service, and lower the costs 

of the Printing, Procurement Program. 

OMB Draft Legislation

 Recently, the Director of OMB transmitted to several Members of Congress proposed 

legislation titled "The Electronic Depository Library Act of 1996." We were provided with a copy 

of the proposal and analyzed its provisions. Copies of our analysis were transmitted to the 

Chairman and ranking Member of this Committee as well as other Members of Congress. 

 Several key provisions of OMB's proposal contrast sharply with the legislative direction 

suggested in the recently concluded study on the electronic transition of the FDLP. Although the 

current FDLP includes information from all three branches of Government, the OMB proposal 

would apply to the executive branch only. 

 In addition, the OMB proposal would potentially circumscribe the type of information that 

would be made available to depository libraries. It would transfer policy oversight for electronic 

dissemination to depositories from the Superintendent of Documents to agency Chief Information 

Officers (CIO's), who are accountable by law to OMB. It would allow agencies to make individual 

arrangements with depository libraries to pay for fee-based information services operated by 

agencies, and would set no limit on the fees, signaling a dramatic departure from the traditional 

principle of making Government information available to depositories without charge. It would 

effectively transform the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) of the Department of 

Commerce--which has no depository distribution authority and which could provide no guarantee 

of assuring equitable public access to any information it disseminates to depositories--into the 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

30

executive branch's depository of final resort. It would also establish NTIS as the centralized point 

of access for executive branch information, in contrast to OMB's objection to the "centralized 

management model" currently operational in the FDLP. While the OMB proposal is purportedly 

designed to improve depository access to electronic information, the enforcement mechanism it 

provides would be weak and ineffectual. 

 The most prominent shortcoming of OMB's proposal lies in the provisions regarding the 

dissemination of online services. Agency CIO's would make direct, individual arrangements with 

depository libraries for access to online services "in some suitable electronic format." Online 

services would be required to be listed in each agency's information locator service so that libraries 

could find them. 

 This part of the bill seriously miscalculates the value and utility to the library community of 

having a single entity in the Superintendent of Documents to coordinate library-related information 

dissemination activities. Currently, GPO deals with hundreds of departments, agencies, bureaus, 

and offices, represented by approximately 4,500 billing address codes. To deal with a potentially 

vast number of online publishing entities in an increasingly distributed electronic environment, 

each of approximately 1,400 depository libraries would assume an enormous administrative 

burden without the presence of a central entity to coordinate services, provide notice of 

information availability, promote standards, develop guidelines on timeliness, and suggest userfriendly interfaces. 

 Providing equitable dissemination to all libraries, regardless of differing equipment capabilities in 

the library community, would be equally burdensome to agencies. The GPO Electronic 

Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993 was enacted in part to relieve agencies of this 

burden by establishing a single online service that would standardize service provision to all 

depository libraries. Since it is unlikely that many agencies would want or be able to provide 

differing levels of services, the result would be that only those libraries with the most 

comprehensive electronic capabilities would be able to access most Federal online systems. 

 To support its legislative proposal OMB stated their opinion that "the centralized management 

model of chapter 19 [of Title 44, U.S.C.] is not appropriate for distributed electronic information 

products and services." However, this is not the conclusion that was reached by the broad 

spectrum of participants in the FDLP study. The study confirmed the value of a central entity to 

assist libraries and the public in accessing electronic Government information in a distributed 

environment. Statutory improvements identified by the study could be attained through legislative 

revisions that would be less sweeping than those proposed by OMB, less burdensome on agencies, 

depository libraries, information users, and the taxpayers, and less damaging to the comprehensive 

and equitable system of access to Government information provided through the depository library 

program today. 

Proposals for Change to Title 44 

Need for Updating
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

31

 I think the basic structure of Title 44 is sound, but I agree that certain parts of the statutes need 

updating. For example, it no longer seems necessary in the Information Age to require the Public 

Printer to be "a practical printer, versed in the art of bookbinding," and references to technology 

such as stereotype plates have long since grown antiquated. Many observers have suggested 

changing the name of the Government Printing Office to something more descriptive of GPO's 

modern information reproduction and dissemination functions. Those provisions and others like 

them clearly need to be updated. 

 Also in need of change are provisions that would improve our capability to manage our sales 

program effectively. For example, we are not permitted to offer volume discounts of more than 25 

percent, although the industry standard is 40 percent. Greater flexibility in managing this program 

could reduce costs and prices and improve dissemination to the public. However, we do not seek 

authority to "publish" Government information, as some observers have suggested. 

Reform of Funding Mechanism

 Another possible change is reform of 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 section 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 increases the prices of GPO's products and 

services. 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. 

Changes to Facilitate FDLP Transition

 The recent study on the transition to a more electronic FDLP contained several suggestions for 

change to chapter 19 of Title 44 to facilitate that transition. The suggestions, which are currently 

under review by the library community, would provide explicit statutory recognition of GPO's 

FDLP role and responsibilities in the Information Age. 

Transfer of JCP Authorities

 Transferring certain JCP authorities to the Public Printer would address constitutional concerns 

about the role of the JCP. However, I also recognize that the JCP performs a valuable function for 

GPO as a referee over the printing, priorities of the two Houses of Congress, and in providing 

policy oversight for printing and information dissemination issues, and I would not recommend its 

abolition altogether. 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

32

Oversight of Agency In-plant Capabilities

 Congress needs 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 

that 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. 

Congressional Review of Other Authorities

 As part of the effort to change Title 44, Congress needs to examine the authorities of other 

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

that GPO is required to perform. 

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

Congressional Research Study 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 the 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) of the Department of Commerce, 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 General Services 

Administration (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 centrally-located 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, resulting in copyright or copyright-like restrictions on the information that 

was originally generated at taxpayer expense. UNICOR has invested in long-run printing 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

33

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. Congress needs to review the operation of these authorities to 

ensure that they are staying within the original legislative intent. That would be a major 

contribution to reform of the printing statutes. 

Financial Condition

 Apart from the potential revision of GPO's funding mechanism, a major revision of the law is 

not necessary to address the financial situation at GPO. As you know, GPO has experienced a 

series of year-end financial losses since 1991, due principally to declining revenues. The losses 

were funded out of retained earnings in GPO's revolving fund and did not require additional 

funding from Congress. Revenue declines have been the result of less work coming in, due 

primarily to budget cuts in the agencies but also to the increasing use of electronics and the 

production of work by agency plants. They were also the result of a printing rate structure at GPO 

that remained unchanged from January 1990 until Just recently, when we worked with the JCP to 

establish a pricing structure that fully recovers costs. 

 In response to this situation, GPO has moved to reduce expenses. Since I took office in 1993, 

we have reduced personnel levels by more than 1,000, generating an estimated savings of $50 

million, and total employment at GPO is now lower than at any time in the post World War II 

period. In fiscal 1995, we reduced the loss by year end to $3 million on $852.6 million in 

revenues, for a margin of less than one-half of one percent. However, due to continuing decreases 

in workload, resulting in part from two Government shutdowns and several snow days, combined 

losses were $17 million through May 1996. 

 We will continue to downsize and adjust operations to meet workload levels. The House of 

Representatives has directed us to reduce to 3,600 full-time equivalent (FTE) work years by the 

end of fiscal year 1997, and we will achieve that goal. Other cost-saving and downsizing actions can 

also be taken within the context of current law. Apart from a revision that would permit us to fund 

general administrative expenses from appropriated funds, Title 44 provides GPO with sufficient 

financial tools to meet the current situation. 

 Beyond these measures, I think Title 44 is a good set of laws for ensuring economy in printing 

and for providing comprehensive and equitable public access to Government information. With 

some changes, it would be broad enough and flexible enough to accommodate the transition to 

new information technologies, and it currently is sufficient to permit adjustment to reduced 

printing workloads. Focused adjustments to Title 44, in combination with congressional review of 

other authorities and continued downsizing and technological transition at GPO, would provide a 

realistic and achievable program for improving operations without endangering the ability to 

generate economies in Government printing and ensure public access. 
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

34
AN-v17-#11-8/15/96 

35

Table of Contents

GPO's Suite of Pathway Services Is Now Available................................. 1 

Networking the NTDB CD-ROM....................................................... 3 

Mark Your Calendars! .................................................................... 4 

You Can Help Plan the 1997 Federal Depository Conference ..................... 4 

Duncan Aldrich Joins Electronic Transition Staff.................................... 5 

LPS Update, Remarks Before AALL by Greta Boeringer.......................... 5 

Readers Exchange: New Mexico Takes a Leap ......................................11 

Public Printer Statement: Senate Committee on Rules and Administration......13