Established in 1861, GPO is the principal agent for federal printing. All printing for the Congress, the Executive Office, and the Judiciary—except for the Supreme Court of the United States—and for every executive department, independent office, and establishment of the government is required to be done at or contracted by GPO. An agency located in the legislative branch, GPO produces the Congressional Record, the Federal Register, the Code of Federal Regulations, and other key government documents. GPO, through its Superintendent of Documents, is also responsible for the acquisition, classification, dissemination, and bibliographic control of tangible and electronic government information products. Accordingly, regardless of the printing source, the law requires that federal agencies make all their publications in all formats available to the Superintendent of Documents for cataloging and distribution. The Superintendent of Documents then distributes this government information in traditional and electronic formats to the public through a system of more than 1,300 depository libraries nationwide—the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). The Superintendent of Documents also links the public to about 203,000 online government documents through its Web site, known as GPO Access. In addition, it makes about 9,000 titles available for sale via telephone, mail, fax, e-mail, online orders from publishing agency Web sites, booksellers, the GPO Online Bookstore, and GPO Bookstores. This longstanding structure for centralized dissemination of government information is facing several challenges. First, government printing has evolved from a primarily in-house GPO operation to a combination of GPO-administered private printing contracts, executive branch agency contracts, and in-house printing. We have reported on this development and questioned the efficiency and effectiveness in this environment of the centralized GPO model for government printing. Second, federal agencies are increasingly disseminating information via agency Web sites, which is decreasing reliance on large-scale printing as the means to produce government documents. Third, the statutory mechanism for GPO printing and document distribution faces constitutional issues. Congress gave the congressional Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) broad authority to supervise government printing and distribution of government publications. Its regulation of executive branch printing and document distribution, however, has been viewed by the Department of Justice as being unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s 1983 “separation of power” decision in INS v. Chadha. In this case, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), the Supreme Court invalidated the legislative veto authority of Congress, ruling that Congress can only affect the executive branch through legislation that has been passed by both Houses and signed into law. In the years since Chadha, the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and Budget have several times instructed executive branch agencies that they need not comply with either statutory JCP requirements or the JCP Printing and Binding Regulations. These challenges have impaired GPO’s ability to acquire and disseminate government documents. In 1996, GPO estimated that about 50 percent of government documents published in that year were not indexed, catalogued, and distributed to the depository libraries. Documents that should be—but are not—distributed by the Superintendent of Documents to the depository libraries are known as fugitive documents. GPO asserts that these fugitive documents are increasing because of electronic dissemination of information via agency Web sites and decreasing agency compliance with the statutory requirements for printing through GPO. Many government documents are also disseminated or sold by other components of the national information dissemination infrastructure, including the Department of Defense’s Defense Technical Information Center (a major component of the Department of Defense’s Scientific and Technical Information Program) and the Department of Commerce’s National Technical Information Service. Increasingly, these documents are also available on agencies’ Web sites and through FirstGov—a government Web site providing the public with one-stop access to online federal resources, including government publications. Increasing use of electronic publishing and dissemination technology is also changing the FDLP itself. The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1996 directed GPO to reassess the program within this context. Noting that the use of these technologies requires careful analysis, planning, and the probable restructuring of the current federal dissemination program, the act directed GPO to examine the functions and services of the FDLP, identify measures that were necessary to ensure a successful transition to a more electronically based FDLP, and prepare a strategic plan for such a transition. The resulting study and its companion strategic planrecommended a 5-year transition to a more electronic FDLP, identified a core of government publications that should continue to be distributed on paper, such as the Code of Federal Regulations, and established a schedule for the transition. According to this schedule, by the end of fiscal year 1998 FDLP libraries were to receive 50 percent of publications in electronic format. The program reached this objective in fiscal year 2000, when about 57 percent of FDLP titles were made available online via GPO Access. Although the FDLP has begun to provide online access to selected government publications via GPO Access, it uses electronic information to supplement—and selectively replace—the dissemination of the same information on paper or microfiche. Thus, the number of tangible titles— on paper, microfiche, or CD-ROM—distributed to FDLP libraries since the publication of the study has remained relatively stable: from 29,372 titles distributed in fiscal year 1996 to 28,849 titles in fiscal year 2000. A similarly modest decline was evident in the number of distributed tangible copies, from 13,472,946 copies distributed in fiscal year 1996 to 12,207,064 copies in fiscal year 2000. A major impetus for accelerating the transition to a more electronic FDLP occurred in fiscal year 2001, when the Congress reduced by $2 million the funding for the programs managed by the Superintendent of Documents. Faced with this funding shortfall, GPO analyzed printing contracts to determine whether the publications distributed on paper or microfiche might also have online versions available. The analysis showed that 40 percent of the distributed tangible titles had online versions available. Acting on this finding, the Superintendent has accelerated the transition of the FDLP to a primarily electronic program and issued a policy for the dissemination of publications to depository libraries. The policy restated earlier guidance articulated in an August 2000 letter from the Superintendent of Documents to the directors of depository libraries, reaffirmed the commitment to use online dissemination as the primary method of FDLP distribution, and defined the conditions under which the program will continue to distribute paper publications and other tangible products, even if the publications are available online. Specifically, the program will also distribute the paper or tangible version when any one of the following conditions is met: There is a legal requirement to distribute the publication in tangible format. The paper publication is of significant reference value to most types of FDLP libraries. The paper publication serves a special needs population. The commonly accepted medium of the user community is tangible format. The product is essential to the conduct of government. With regard to the last category, the Superintendent of Documents has identified a list of “Essential Titles for Public Use in Paper Format.” Based on an initial list developed in 1996, these “essential” titles would be made available to the depository libraries in paper format, regardless of their online availability. These documents, listed in appendix VII, include such titles as the Budget of the United States, the Code of Federal Regulations, the Congressional Record, and the United States Code. We determined that 28 of the 42 titles (about 67 percent) are also available online. According to the Superintendent of Documents, maintaining the availability of these titles for selection in paper format is essential to the purpose of the FDLP. Advances in information technologies and the Internet continue to shape the FDLP. Over the years, these advances have also triggered numerous initiatives focused on reforming and restructuring the nation’s information dissemination infrastructure in general and the Office of the Superintendent of Documents in particular. These initiatives—including the recent proposal by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Sciences—are discussed in appendix VIII. Electronic dissemination of government documents offers the opportunity to reduce the costs of dissemination and make government information more usable and accessible. However, to move to an environment in which documents are disseminated solely in electronic format, a number of challenges would need to be overcome. These challenges include ensuring that these documents are (1) authentic, (2) permanently maintained, and (3) equally accessible to all individuals. In addition, cost issues should be addressed, including the effect of shifting printing costs to depository libraries and end users. One of the advantages of electronic dissemination is that electronic documents cost less to store, maintain, and disseminate. Electronic documents require no warehouse space and incur no shipping charges. If necessary, they may be readily updated with little further production cost. The contrast in costs between electronic and paper dissemination is illustrated by the costs associated with GPO Access in fiscal year 2000. In this period, the Superintendent of Documents distributed almost 12.2 million copies of 28,849 tangible titles to depository libraries and added 32,306 online titles to the 160,726 titles available at the end of fiscal year 1999 through GPO Access. For the 28,849 tangible titles, the reported fiscal year 2000 printing and reproduction costs were about $13.7 million; for operating and maintaining the 193,032 online titles the reported cost was about $3.3 million. A second advantage of electronic dissemination is that electronic documents may offer greater functionality than traditional paper documents. They can be searched, can be linked to related information, can be manipulated (allowing users to cut and paste text), and may incorporate not only images, but also audio and video. Further, electronic documents make printing on demand accessible to individuals. A third advantage of electronic dissemination is that electronic documents make government information far more accessible to citizens, including those with physical impairments. Once posted, they are immediately accessible to thousands of users from multiple locations around the nation. Because the Web is location independent, it reduces geographic differentiation and may eliminate the need for visits to a distant depository library or GPO bookstore. Moreover, unlike their paper counterparts stored in the nation’s libraries and bookstores, electronic documents are generally available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. While the Web-based dissemination of electronic government publications provides an attractive alternative to the traditional ink-on-paper approach, a number of challenges would need to be overcome if the government were to disseminate documents solely in electronic format. These challenges include addressing (1) authentication, (2) permanence, and (3) equity of access. In addition, cost issues would need to be addressed. Authentication provides the assurance that the electronic document is official and complete: i.e., that the document was not surreptitiously or accidentally modified. When citizens access and retrieve government documents from federal Web sites, they should have assurance that the accessed documents are authentic. Although document authentication may be achieved through electronic signatures or seals, government documents currently available on the Web often lack authentication. Once downloaded from government Web sites, documents lacking electronic signatures or seals may be modified without detection. The FDLP is not currently using electronic signatures or other electronic means to authenticate government documents, but GPO is in the process of procuring public key infrastructure (PKI) technology to provide authentication of government publications disseminated online via GPO Access. Program officials told us that they guarantee the authenticity of the electronic documents available on the GPO Access Web site, although no such guarantee is posted on the Web site itself. Permanence refers to the retention of an online document by a Web site, making it possible for users to repeatedly find or link to the document. In practice, this means that the document must be maintained online in perpetuity. Since GPO provides FDLP libraries with access to electronic documents through GPO Access, it has assumed responsibility for their permanence. To do this, GPO uses the Online Computer Library Center’s Persistent Uniform Resource Locators, which provide an effective means to update Internet addresses by redirecting users from old Internet addresses to the most recent address associated with an electronic publication. Although the Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993 directs the Superintendent of Documents to maintain an electronic directory of government information and provide online access to government documents, there is no explicit legal requirement for the Superintendent of Documents or any other federal entity to permanently maintain online electronic versions of government documents. However, GPO has advised us that it believes that it has a legal basis to maintain permanent access to electronic information. In addition, portions of government electronic information products managed by the Superintendent of Documents in what is known as the FDLP Electronic Collection are maintained by partner institutions, including other federal agencies and depository libraries and consortia. Recognizing the risk of losing documents controlled by other agencies, FDLP is acquiring and archiving electronic documents managed by these agencies. Equity of access recognizes that some individuals may have difficulty accessing and using electronic information. Many individuals have no access to the Internet, lack computer skills, or are unable to navigate the increasingly complex Web environment. A recent National Telecommunications and Information Administration report on Americans’ access to the Internet notes that while the Web is becoming more and more widespread, about 60 percent of U.S. households have no access to the Internet, whether by choice, poverty, or disability. Moreover, people with disabilities are only half as likely to have access to the Internet compared to those without disabilities. Although individuals in households without Internet access may use access provided by public schools or libraries, the lack of direct access poses a barrier. Similarly, even frequent Internet users may find it difficult to search for and locate specific government documents on the Web. According to the National Commission on Libraries and Information Sciences, government Web sites are often difficult to search, with users confronted with such a massive volume of disorganized materials that they cannot easily find what they are seeking, even if they are highly computer and information literate. In addition, while electronic documents are less costly to disseminate, GPO may face near-term cost increases associated with creating electronic documents when none exist. In 2000, the Superintendent of Documents explored the cost of a fully electronic depository library program. The study pointed out that there are no electronic versions available to the depository library program for many of the documents printed by GPO, and that the library program would have to digitize (that is, scan electronically) thousands of documents to make them suitable for online dissemination via GPO Access. The Superintendent of Documents estimated, based on 25,063 titles distributed to depository libraries between April 1999 and March 2000, that approximately 40 percent (10,000 titles) had an online counterpart, and that the remaining 60 percent (15,000 titles) would have to be converted. According to GPO, an additional $7.7 million would have been required in fiscal year 2000 to convert to a totally electronic FDLP, bringing total program costs to $38 million. The depository libraries may also expect to bear additional costs if the depository library program begins to disseminate government documents solely in electronic format. These include the costs of (1) printing shelf copies of electronic documents, (2) purchasing selected printed documents no longer provided by the library program, (3) training librarians in the use of the Internet and electronic reference services, and (4) helping library patrons to use the Internet to search and locate government publications. This shift in costs to the end user or to libraries was also recognized by the Depository Library Council. The Council noted that although this shift is an unintended consequence of technology, libraries will struggle with different issues such as printing, formatting, and providing users with instructions on how to use online technology. This point was echoed by the National Research Council in its argument that libraries must adopt a new model for library acquisitions, one that considers not only the cost of access to information, but also the cost of maintaining the technical environment—including hardware, software, and personnel—required to make these resources available to readers. Both advantages and disadvantages are associated with transferring the depository library program to the Library. In studies conducted in 1993 and 1994, the Library concluded that the depository library program is not inconsistent with the mission and functions of the Library and that it might be appropriate for the Library to have responsibility for a program established to acquire government documents and distribute them to depository libraries. Further, a transfer could allow the depository library program and the Library to develop governmentwide solutions to the common issues they face in addressing the acquisition, maintenance, and dissemination of electronic information. In addition, three other GPO programs—closely related to the depository library program or the Library and consistent with the Library’s mission—could also be considered for transfer. However, the Public Printer stated that the Library is not an appropriate home for the depository library program because the Library’s mission is inconsistent with a large-scale information dissemination program. In addition, the Library studies, as well as organizations representing librarians, cited disadvantages associated with such a transfer. These disadvantages included potential negative effects on public access to information and concern about the availability of funds to maintain the current program. In addition, unions representing GPO employees expressed concern about the effect of a transfer on employee rights. According to studies conducted by the Library, the mission of the Library—to make its resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations—and that of the depository library program—to ensure that the American public has access to government information by disseminating information products to libraries nationwide—are not inconsistent. The Library noted that its National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped has long experience with distributing library materials through its network of libraries for the blind and physically handicapped. Therefore, a transfer could expand the Library’s current involvement in the dissemination of government information and enable consolidation of dissemination functions. A transfer of selected programs of the Superintendent of Documents might also facilitate the depository library program and the Library working together to address the broad issues of acquiring, managing, and disseminating digital information—issues critical to both organizations. In December 2000, the Library received a special appropriation of $100 million to lead a national strategic planning effort to develop a National Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program. In making this appropriation, the Congress directed the Librarian to develop a plan jointly with federal entities having expertise in telecommunications technology and electronic commerce, and with the participation of representatives of other federal, research, and private libraries and institutions having expertise in the collection and maintenance of archives of digital materials. The Library has developed a planning framework and is assembling advisory groups and forming partnerships to guide its planning for the national digital information strategy. In addition to the depository library program, three of the six other programs managed by the Superintendent of Documents could be considered for transfer. These programs are (1) Cataloging and Indexing, (2) GPO Access, including the FDLP Electronic Collection, and (3) the International Exchange Service. Two of the programs, the Cataloging and Indexing program and GPO Access, are closely related to the depository library program. Under the third program, the International Exchange Service, the Superintendent of Documents disseminates documents to foreign libraries on behalf of the Library of Congress. The Cataloging and Indexing program is responsible for identifying and organizing government publications by title, subject, and agency, and providing this information to users through indexes, catalogs, and online retrieval systems. The Cataloging and Indexing program ensures that government publications entering FDLP dissemination are under bibliographic control. According to Library studies, the Cataloging and Indexing program is consistent with the functions of the Library. The program would complement the Library’s cataloging operations and centralize the cataloging of government documents in a single entity. The Library considers that information gathered through the consolidated cataloging and indexing operation would help to ensure that all government publications are reported to a central source and thus help to reduce the number of fugitive documents that escape bibliographic control. GPO Access provides the public with access to electronic documents under the bibliographic control of the Superintendent of Documents. This program is essential to the Superintendent’s commitment to provide online access to government documents. The International Exchange Service program provides for the distribution of U.S. government publications to foreign libraries in exchange for publications produced by their governments. Foreign publications are then sent to the Library, which administers the program. As such, the program is already the responsibility of the Library and consistent with the Library’s mission. In addition, integrating the international exchange program into the Library’s ongoing domestic and international information exchange programs would allow the Library to consolidate responsibilities for the administration and distribution of all federal documents. The Library’s Office of the Director of Acquisitions, which currently administers the Library’s portion of the program, could assume complete responsibility for the international exchange program. Both the Library studies and organizations representing the interests of libraries and librarians—including the American Library Association and its Government Documents Roundtable—identified disadvantages associated with a potential transfer. The following are some of the more significant disadvantages identified. The library community does not believe that a transfer would enhance and promote the public’s no-fee access to government information. The Library expressed concern about the availability of funds to maintain the products and services available to depository libraries, much less support new products and services. According to the library community, a transfer would signal to executive agencies, which contribute thousands of tangible information products to the FDLP, that their publications are no longer needed. This would lead to the loss of thousands of publications that would no longer be accessible to the public. Efforts to retrieve and convert these documents after the fact would be logistically and financially prohibitive. The library community stated that disengaging the dissemination functions of the depository library program from the printing functions of GPO may destroy the only gateway available to minimize the number of fugitive documents. Similarly, the Library noted that this separation would have a major impact on both the depository library program and the international exchange service by making it more difficult and costly to ensure that materials Congress intended for these programs were actually distributed. The library community noted that a transfer of GPO’s Cataloging and Indexing program to the Library would likely result in a loss of quality, speed, and detail in cataloging. The transfer would add a significant level of bureaucracy and would result in increased costs in providing the transferred services, a loss of productivity, and disassembly of a cohesive program, according to the library community. With regard to the missions of the depository library program and the Library, Library studies indicated that the missions of the depository library program and the Library are “not inconsistent,” but also cautioned that administering the depository library program would considerably expand the Library’s mission. On the other hand, the Public Printer stated that the mission and operations of the Library are inconsistent with a large-scale information dissemination program such as the depository library program. He further stated that transferring the depository library program to the Library would increase costs, impose additional burdens on the Library, and not result in any improvement in the public’s ability to access government information. In addition, the library community took the view that the missions of the Library and the federal depository library program vary so significantly that the appropriateness of a transfer is questionable. The library community also noted that the mission of the Library would have to be expanded to accommodate the needs of government information users. The unions representing employees—the American Federation of Government Employees and the Graphics Communication International Union—expressed concern that a transfer might negatively affect annuities and seniority for all transferred employees and pay for blue- collar workers. Further, without specific enabling legislation, they maintain, unionized employees transferred to the Library would lose bargaining rights over wages. As previously noted, we were also asked to assess other issues affecting a potential transfer of the depository library program. If a decision is made to transfer the program, transition planning would be critical to determining how and when such a transfer should occur. One option would be to form a joint GPO/Library transition team which could include representation from the depository libraries. This team could further study and resolve critical issues cited by the library community and unions. This team could develop a detailed transition plan and schedule, cost estimates, and performance measures and identify data and system migration requirements. Regarding measures that could help ensure the success of a transfer, we identified the following: Ensure that issues raised by the library community are appropriately addressed, including the effects of a transfer on the number of fugitive documents, and the effect on the cataloging and indexing function. Address seniority, salary rates, and bargaining rights of union members transferred to the Library. Consider limiting the physical movement of staff and equipment during the transition period. Staff and equipment of the Superintendent of Documents units responsible for managing the programs transferred to the Library of Congress could continue to occupy their current office space at the GPO site. The Library could pay GPO for support services, including rent, building maintenance, and communications services. During the transition period, consider continuing to rely on the information systems and computer support provided by GPO’s Office of Information Resources Management to the Superintendent of Documents offices and programs transferred to the Library. The transition could take place after the detailed transition planning mentioned previously is completed. In addition, it may be advisable to begin the transition at the start of the fiscal year to coincide with budgetary actions. Appendixes IV, V, and VI provide requested information on the functions, services, and programs of the Superintendent of Documents and on the administrative and infrastructure support that is provided to the Superintendent by GPO. With regard to the potential cost of transferring the depository library program, we identified the program infrastructure costs for GPO and the Library as the most likely to be affected. Infrastructure services include administrative services such as payroll processing; rents, communications, and utilities; and information system support. The Superintendent of Documents currently pays GPO for these infrastructure costs. It appears that the program costs may remain stable, unless the Library or GPO makes changes in their scope or work processes. Of the seven programs managed by the Superintendent of Documents, four could be transferred to the Library and might be expected to continue to operate using existing processes, equipment, and staff. Three of the seven programs—By-Law Distribution, Sales of Publications, and Agency Distribution Services—are expected to remain at GPO. The costs for administrative services may also remain stable. As the Library assumed the management of the transferred units, it would also begin to provide various administrative services, such as personnel and payroll, previously provided by GPO. We assume that the Library would continue to pay for these services from the Superintendent’s Salaries and Expenses appropriations, and that the Library’s overhead rate for these services is comparable to GPO’s. In fiscal year 2000, the Superintendent of Documents expenses for administrative services and support provided by GPO were about $4.7 million. Similarly, we expect that the cost for rents, communications, and utilities would remain stable if there were no physical movement of staff or equipment. Staff and equipment of the Superintendent of Documents units responsible for managing the programs transferred to the Library of Congress could continue to occupy their current office space at GPO. The Library could then pay GPO at the current rate for rent, building maintenance, and communications services. In fiscal year 2000, the Superintendent of Documents expenses for the rents, communications, and utilities provided by GPO were about $7.3 million. The cost of information system support might increase during the transition period, largely because the transferred units and programs would continue to pay GPO for continuing information system support while migrating to the Library’s systems. In fiscal year 2000, the Superintendent of Documents expenses for information systems support provided by GPO were about $3.5 million. We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the Public Printer and the Librarian of Congress. Their comments are reprinted in appendixes IX and X, respectively. In a letter dated March 21, 2001, the Public Printer raised numerous issues concerning the contents of the draft report. First, he stated that the report does not provide a comprehensive study of the impact of providing documents solely in electronic format. He stated that the report only briefly mentions such major issues as authenticity, permanent public access, security, equity of access, and cost considerations, and does not address how these issues will be resolved in an all-electronic information environment. Second, he stated that the Library is not an appropriate home for the federal depository library program, as the Library’s mission is inconsistent with a large-scale dissemination program. Finally, he states that the draft report lacks balance in the presentation of information from prior GAO audits because we did not include a discussion of a more recent study of GPO management. With regard to electronic dissemination, the conference report required us to study the impact of providing government information solely in electronic format, among other issues, and provide a report by March 30, 2001. Recognizing this limited timeframe, our report appropriately raises the major issues and challenges that would need to be addressed to move to an environment in which government documents are disseminated solely in electronic format. Resolving these challenges, however, is well beyond the scope of what we were asked to do and is instead the responsibility of federal agencies that disseminate information, including GPO. With regard to the transfer of the depository library program, we have revised the report to reflect GPO’s position that the mission of the depository library program is inconsistent with that of the Library. With regard to the comment on balance, our 1990 report is mentioned briefly in the report’s background because of its discussion of issues relating to the structure of GPO. We did not mention the Booz-Allen & Hamilton report cited by GPO because it dealt primarily with the management of GPO—an issue not addressed by this report. In a letter dated March 21, 2001, the Librarian of Congress also raised numerous issues concerning the draft report. First, the Librarian stated that sufficient analysis has not been done to support our recommendation that an Interagency Transition Team be established to plan the transfer of the depository library program, particularly in light of the recent mandate from the Congress that designated the Library the lead agency in developing the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program. The Librarian also stated that the report focuses exclusively on shifting functions from one legislative branch agency to another and not on the larger policy issues involved in providing citizens useful and persistent access to government information. With regard to the Librarian’s comment concerning the recommendation in the draft report, we would like to clarify that the report contains neither conclusions nor recommendations. Our discussion of a transition team is offered only as one possible option for facilitating a transition, if the Congress decides to direct such a transfer. With regard to the focus of the report, we again note that the conference report specifically required us to study issues related to the feasibility of transferring the depository library program to the Library. Therefore, our report properly identifies the major issues that would need to be addressed if the Congress directs such a transfer. However, we recognize that the larger policy issues raised by the Librarian are valid. Therefore, we look forward to seeing the results of the Library’s efforts to study the dissemination of electronic government information as well as its strategy for dealing with the life cycle of digital information. The Public Printer also stated in his comments that the draft report contained numerous factual inaccuracies and misinterpretations. We subsequently received specific technical comments, which we have incorporated into the report as appropriate. Appendix IX also includes more specific responses to the Public Printer’s comments. The Librarian also provided technical comments that we have incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this letter to Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Senator Robert F. Bennett, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Senator Fred Thompson, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Senator Pete V. Domenici, Senator Kent Conrad, Representative C. W. (Bill) Young, Representative David R. Obey, Representative Charles H. Taylor, Representative James P. Moran, Representative Dan Burton, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Representative Jim Nussle, and Representative John M. Spratt, in their capacities as Chair, Ranking Member, or Ranking Minority Member of Senate and House Committees and Subcommittees, and to other interested parties. Copies will also be available on our Web site at www.gao.gov. Please contact me at (202) 512-6240 if you or your staff have any questions. I can also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were Timothy E. Case, Barbara S. Collier, Mirko J. Dolak, Jackson W. Hufnagle, William N. Isrin, and George L. Jones. This report responds to the requirements in the conference report for the legislative branch appropriations for 2001 that we study the impact of providing documents to the public solely in electronic assess the feasibility of transferring the depository library program to the Library of Congress. As part of our assessment of the depository library program, we were asked to (1) identify how such a transfer might be accomplished; (2) identify when such a transfer might optimally occur; (3) examine the functions, services, and programs of the Superintendent of Documents; (4) examine and identify administrative and infrastructure support that is provided to the Superintendent by GPO, with a view to the implications for such a transfer; (5) examine and identify the costs, for both GPO and the Library of Congress, of such a transfer; and (6) identify measures that are necessary to ensure the success of such a transfer. In addition, the conference report required that we provide (1) a current inventory of publications and documents that are provided to the public and (2) the frequency with which each type of publication or document is requested for deposit at nonregional depository libraries. To assess the impact of providing government documents solely in electronic format, we reviewed technical literature and studies, analyzed the Superintendent’s workload and publication dissemination data, and reviewed the workload and performance of the GPO Access Web site. In addition, we interviewed the Superintendent’s personnel, depository librarians, members of the American Library Association and of the Association of Research Libraries, and a representative of the American Association of Law Libraries to obtain their views on the feasibility and impact of distributing government documents solely in electronic format. To develop a current inventory of publications and documents provided by the Superintendent of Documents to the public, we focused on the sales inventory because GPO does not maintain an inventory of publications distributed to the depository libraries. We analyzed GPO’s fiscal year 2000 publication inventory and sales data. We also interviewed the Superintendent’s personnel responsible for preparing cyclical and annual inventories to obtain information on warehousing locations and on the disposal of excess publications. To obtain information on the frequency with which each type of publication or document is requested for deposit at nonregional depository libraries, we obtained and analyzed data from the 1999 Biennial Survey of Federal Depository Libraries. In assessing the feasibility, cost, and the timing of transfer of the depository library program to the Library of Congress, we reviewed GPO and Library of Congress program and budget documents, legislative proposals, and studies that examined the feasibility of the transfer of the Superintendent of Documents functions and staff to the Library of Congress. In addition, we interviewed GPO and Library of Congress managers and staff, members of selected professional library associations, the representatives of the two unions representing unionized employees of the Superintendent of Documents, and the executive director of the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science to obtain their views on this issue. We performed our work at GPO and Library of Congress headquarters in Washington, D.C., from October 2000 through March 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. While we did not assess the reliability of GPO-supplied data, we worked with GPO officials to verify fiscal year 2000 budget, personnel, and production data. GPO makes publications available to the public through the FDLP and the sales program. Under the FDLP, GPO disseminates thousands of publications—about 28,000 in fiscal year 2000—to over 1,300 depository libraries each year. The depository libraries maintain these publications as part of their collections and make them available, free of charge, to the public. GPO does not, however, maintain centralized information on publications that have been distributed to the depository libraries, and as a result, we are unable to provide a current inventory of these publications. (See appendix V for more detailed information on the FDLP.) Under its sales program, GPO sells documents to the public by mail and telephone order, through its bookstores located around the country, and through its Online Bookstore on GPO Access. GPO maintains information on its inventory of publications offered for sale. GPO’s program to sell government publications is managed by the Superintendent of Documents’ Documents Sales Service. In fiscal year 2000, the Service made approximately 9,000 titles of government documents (figure 1) available to the public for sale. The Service maintains a large inventory of these documents—about 5.2 million copies in fiscal year 2000, with a retail value of $74 million (figures 2 and 3). The number of titles available for sale and the inventory maintained by the Service has dropped substantially over the last decade. From fiscal years 1991 to 2000, the number of titles dropped by 7,759, a reduction of 46 percent, and the number of copies in the inventory fell by about 4.8 million copies, a drop of 48 percent. Titles (in thousands) Copies (in millions) Fiscal year Dollars (in millions) The retail value of the inventory—which in fiscal year 2000 totaled $74.1 million—has had periods of both stability and fluctuation since 1995. Although the value of the inventory was relatively stable from 1991 to 1995, it lost almost 30 percent of its value, or $25 million, from 1995 to 1996. This dramatic drop in the value of the inventory, according to GPO officials, is closely associated with the large number of unsold documents destroyed by the Service in fiscal year 1996. Every year, the Service destroys, as required by law, a substantial number of unsold or superseded documents. In fiscal year 2000, it destroyed 1.9 million documents (figure 4) with a retail value of $22.3 million (figure 5). According to GPO, the actual cost of the destroyed publications was only $2.8 million—a fraction of their stated retail value of $22.3 million. Volumes (in millions) Dollars (in millions) The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) is a national network of depository libraries designed to ensure free public access to government information. In fiscal year 2000, the program included 1,328 libraries. Participating libraries must maintain government publications as part of their existing collections and are responsible for ensuring that the public has free access to the deposited documents. Fifty-three libraries are designated regional depository libraries, with a goal of each state having at least one regional library. Regional libraries receive all materials distributed through the FDLP and are required to retain all received government documents in perpetuity, although they may withdraw superseded publications from their collections. The remaining 1,275 nonregional libraries may select what materials to receive and have limited retention responsibilities. We relied on information on library document selection rates reported in the 1999 Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries conducted by the Library Programs Service. As figure 6 shows, 971 (77 percent) of the 1,286 nonregional depository libraries participating in the survey reported that they were selecting less than 40 percent of the items offered by the FDLP, and only 135 (10 percent) reported selection rates over 60 percent. The Office of the Superintendent of Documents is organized into four units (figure 7): (1) the Library Programs Service, (2) Electronic Information Dissemination Services, (3) the Documents Sales Service, and (4) the Documents Technical Support Group. The four units manage seven major programs (see appendix V). In fiscal year 2000 the Superintendent of Documents operations were supported by 597 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, with 450 employees—about 75 percent—working in the Documents Sales Service. The Service is responsible for publication sales and for the Agency and By- Law Distribution Programs. It operates phone, fax, and electronic order services in Washington, D.C., and Pueblo, Colorado, and retails publications through consignment agents and GPO bookstores. The next largest Superintendent of Documents unit—the Library Programs Service—has 106 employees, or about 18 percent of the total of 597 (table 1). The Service manages and operates the Cataloging and Indexing program, the Federal Depository Library Program, and the International Exchange Service. The remaining two units—Electronic Information Dissemination Services and the Documents Technical Support Group—employ 22 and 17 people, respectively, or less than 6 percent of the 597 positions. The Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services assists federal agencies in electronic dissemination, supports the sales program and the sale of electronic products, and provides strategic planning and customer support for GPO Access. It relies largely on GPO’s Production Department for the development, operation, and maintenance of GPO Access. Finally, the Documents Technical Support Group provides management support and services to the Superintendent of Documents. GPO recognizes 16 labor unions, and two of these represent Superintendent of Documents employees: the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the Graphics Communications International Union (GCIU). Superintendent of Documents employees represented by AFGE belong to one of two locals: AFGE-PCJC or Local 3392. Under the provisions of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations statute, GPO deals with unions on all personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions other than wages. Wages are negotiated under the provisions of section 305 of Title 44, known as the Kiess Act. The three locals represent 402 positions of the Superintendent of Documents, or about three fourths of all Superintendent of Documents employees (table 1). AFGE was founded in 1932 and is the largest federal employee union, representing over 600,000 federal and District of Columbia government workers nationwide and overseas. GCIU, a product of a series of mergers among predecessor craft unions, was established in 1983. AFGE- represented staff employed by the Superintendent of Documents include librarians, program analysts, writer-editors, office automation specialists, publication management specialists, marketing research analysts, supply technicians, customer accounts technicians, and inventory management specialists. GCIU-represented staff employed by the Superintendent of Documents include warehouse workers, materials handlers, stock handlers, motor vehicle operators, and printing plant workers. Among the three locals, AFGE-PCJC represents about three-fourths of all represented positions at the Superintendent of Documents (294). AFGE- 3392 and GCIU members represent 9 percent (35 positions) and 18 percent (73 positions), respectively, of total union representation at the Superintendent of Documents. According to GPO, in February 2001 the Superintendent of Documents employed 569 people in various locations. As shown in table 2, about 44 percent of the 569 employees are eligible for retirement (109 employees) or early retirement (139). The largest group of employees (156) eligible for retirement or early retirement is found in Washington, D.C., followed by 56 employees in Laurel, Maryland, 18 employees in Pueblo, Colorado, and 18 employees in bookstores around the country. Table 3 shows GPO-reported employee retirement eligibility by grade. Table 4 shows expenditures for the major organizational units of the Superintendent of Documents in fiscal year 2000. According to GPO, the Superintendent of Documents spent $92.8 million in fiscal year 2000. The Documents Sales Service (DSS) accounted for 62 percent of the Superintendent of Documents fiscal year 2000 expenditures; DSS and the Library Programs Service (LPS) combined account for 90 percent of expenditures. Tables 5 and 6 show the fiscal year 2000 expenditures for the seven major programs conducted by the Office of the Superintendent of Documents. According to GPO, the Salaries and Expense (S&E) appropriation provides funds for labor and related expenses for five of the Office’s seven programs (table 5): (1) Cataloging and Indexing, (2) the Federal Depository Library Program, (3) GPO Access, (4) By-Law Distribution, and (5) the International Exchange Service. The remaining two programs— Agency Distribution Services and Sales of Publications—are funded from the GPO Revolving Fund (table 6). In addition to these two programs, the Revolving Fund finances the printing and binding operations managed by the Public Printer. As shown in table 5, most of the Superintendent of Documents S&E appropriations were allocated to the Federal Depository Library Program, with expenditures of almost $26 million, or about 87 percent of the fiscal year 2000 S&E appropriations. The Cataloging and Indexing program expended about $2.7 million, or about 9 percent of the S&E appropriations, while the By-Law Distribution Program and the International Exchange Service spent about $529,000 and $687,000, respectively. According to GPO, Sales of Publications and the Agency Distribution Services Program are funded through GPO’s Revolving Fund (table 6). Expenses as they occur are drawn from the Revolving Fund, and revenues from sales and agency transfers replenish it. In fiscal year 2000, sales expenses were about $57.7 million and sales revenues were $45.5 million, resulting in a net deficit to the Revolving Fund of about $12.2 million. The Agency Distribution Services Program generated a surplus in fiscal year 2000 of about $85,000 on expenses of approximately $5.1 million and revenues of approximately $5.2 million. The Library Programs Service, with 106 employees, is the second largest of the Superintendent of Documents’ major units. As shown in figure 8, the Library Programs Service is made up of two major units, the Library Division and the Depository Distribution Division, which are further subdivided. The Library Programs Service administers the Federal Depository Library Program and the Cataloging and Indexing program, and manages the distribution component of the International Exchange Service for the Library of Congress. Historically, these programs have been carried out through seven basic functions: distribution/dissemination, bibliographic control of government information products in all formats, acquisition, classification, format conversion, the inspection of depository libraries; and the continuing education and training of depository library personnel. The electronic information environment has created an eighth function, that of preservation of electronic government information for permanent public access. This is done through the management of the FDLP Electronic Collection. According to GPO, the Library Programs Service expended about $26 million in fiscal year 2000 (table 7). Printing and reproduction costs were over $13 million, which accounted for over 50 percent of its fiscal year 2000 budget. Compensation and benefits accounted for about $8 million (30 percent) of the unit’s fiscal year 2000 budget. The Library Division is responsible for managing Depository Services, the Cataloging Branch, and the Depository Administration Branch. Depository Services. Depository Services designates new depository libraries, inspects participating libraries, administers self-studies, provides continuing education and training, and produces administrative publications. Its staff is responsible for relations with the federal depository libraries. Individual depository libraries are inspected for compliance with the requirements of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19, by means of on- site visits. The staff also manages the designation of new depository libraries and terminates libraries upon their request or for cause, and reviews the depository libraries’ self-studies to determine if on-site visits are warranted. It also investigates and acts to resolve complaints about services in participating libraries. The Depository Services staff also develops and administers the Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries and manages the continuing education components of the FDLP. This function consists primarily of arranging the annual Federal Depository Library Conference. The Services staff oversees the Library Programs Service’s administrative publishing effort, including the publication of the Administrative Notes newsletter, the conference proceedings, and the depository library Manual and Guidelines. Cataloging Branch. The Cataloging Branch provides descriptive and subject cataloging (i.e., library-standard descriptions of content and other attributes) for a wide range of government publications in all formats and media. These bibliographic records contain numerous data elements, including author, title, publishing agency, date, Superintendent of Documents class number, etc. The cataloging records are entered into the OCLC (Online Computer Library Center, Inc.) system via the Internet. The principal outputs of the Branch are the cataloging records themselves, which are distributed in machine-readable format via the Library of Congress’ Cataloging Distribution Service, the online Catalog of U.S. Government Publications on GPO Access, and the printed Monthly Catalog. The Branch also searches the Web to discover electronic documents that federal agencies have not provided to the FDLP. Depository Administration Branch. The Depository Administration Branch manages document acquisition, maintains shipping lists, tracks fugitive publications, develops item selection lists, acts as the documents distribution agent to the foreign libraries in the International Exchange Service program, and maintains the GPO Classification Manual and List of Classes. The Depository Distribution Division manages both the Federal Depository Library and the International Exchange Service distribution programs through the physical receipt, storage, handling, and mailing of tangible government publications. The Division uses the Automated Depository Distribution System (ADDS) to guide the physical distribution of publications to depository libraries. The Division also coordinates, negotiates, and manages interagency agreements—primarily for products such as maps—as well as standby contracting and delivery carrier contracts to support distribution programs. In fiscal year 2000, the Division distributed an average of 102,500 copies weekly through the depository library program and about 6,900 copies weekly through the International Exchange Service program. Depository Processing Branch. The Depository Processing Branch uses ADDS to perform the physical distribution of publications to depository libraries. Depository Mailing Branch. The Depository Mailing Branch is responsible for packaging, weighing, and shipping materials sent through the Federal Depository Library and International Exchange Service programs. This Branch also processes claims for nonreceipt of publications from the participating depository libraries. The Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services (EIDS) employs 22 workers and is made up of three units (figure 9): Product Services, the GPO Access User Support Team, and the Electronic Product Development Team. EIDS is responsible for assisting federal agencies in disseminating their electronic government publications through the Superintendent of Documents. The Office works with the GPO Production Department in all stages of development, from the creation, implementation, and maintenance of electronic products to their final sale through GPO Access, including customer support and training. This function includes advising agencies of alternative dissemination platforms and helping them define their requirements for electronic dissemination. The Office also performs strategic planning for the GPO Access program and establishes the program’s policies, procedures, and budget. The GPO Access Internet servers and Web sites are operated and maintained by staff of the GPO Production Department. According to GPO, EIDS expended about $3.3 million in FY2000 (table 8). About $1.3 million, or 39 percent, of the EIDS budget went for compensation and benefits. Over $1.1 million of FY2000 expenditures were for information technology—including the operations and maintenance of GPO Access—provided on a reimbursable basis by GPO’s Production Department. The Product Services group manages the Web content of GPO Access and develops GPO Access participation and training programs, promotional materials, training guides, and operational manuals. The group also manages the Federal Bulletin Board and administers the U.S. Fax Watch System. Fax Watch is a free fax-on-demand service that provides information on the products and services available from the Superintendent of Documents. The GPO Access User Support Team provides support to GPO Access users. The Team also supports electronic product sales and users of GPO’s U.S. Government Online Bookstore. The Electronic Product Development Team develops new electronic products for federal agencies and develops proposals to meet agency electronic publishing needs. The Documents Sales Service includes four major units (figure 10): the Sales Management Division, the Order Division, the Field Operations Division, and Laurel Operations, which includes the Warehouse Division and Retail Distribution. The Documents Sales Service (DSS) is the Superintendent of Documents’ largest entity, with 450 (about 75 percent) of its 597 employees. The Documents Sales Service purchases, warehouses, announces, and distributes government documents in agreement with Titles I and 44 of the U.S. Code. Functions performed by this group include providing subscription services for government publications and selling single publications. The Service operates phone, mail, fax, and electronic order services at the central office in Washington, D.C., and in Pueblo. It also sells publications through government consigned sales agents and GPO bookstores, and provides By-Law and Agency Distribution Services for Congress, the General Services Administration, and other federal agencies. Products may be ordered in person at GPO Bookstores, via e-mail, mail, or through the GPO Online Bookstore. The Documents Sales Service is funded through GPO’s Revolving Fund. According to GPO, in fiscal year 2000, DSS expended about $58 million (table 9). About $23 million—41 percent—of DSS expenditures in the same year went for personnel compensation and benefits. Almost $13 million of DSS’ expenses were for the cost of publications sold. The Sales Management Division is responsible for product acquisition, pricing, inventory management, outreach to federal agency publishers, market research, customer surveys, and product promotion and advertising. The Division also maintains and updates bibliographical information and catalogs documents. The Division is made up of three units (see figure 10): the Documents Control Branch, the Bibliographic Systems Branch, and the Promotion and Advertising Branch. It employs 56 workers. Documents Control Branch. The Documents Control Branch selects and purchases information products for sale and provides inventory management of sales products. Bibliographic Systems Branch. The Bibliographic Systems Branch creates, updates, and maintains bibliographic information for the Sales of Publications Program. This information is used to create the sales product catalog and other products to identify materials for sale. Promotion and Advertising Branch. The Promotion and Advertising Branch provides promotional and advertising services in support of all Superintendent of Documents programs. The Order Division manages the clerical processes in the fulfillment of requests for sales publications and subscriptions, deals with congressional sales correspondence and inquiries, maintains sales information, processes customer complaints, and establishes book dealer and reseller accounts. The Division is made up of three units (see figure 10): the Publication Order Branch, the Mail List Branch, and the Receipts and Processing Branch. The Order Division had 145 employees in fiscal year 2000. Publication Order Branch. The Publication Order Branch receives telephone inquiries and orders via the Order Desk and handles mail inquiries and publication customer complaints. Mail List Branch. The Mail List Branch processes requests for subscription services, maintains various mailing lists (including reimbursable mailing lists, standing order customer lists, and marketing lists), and responds to subscription customer complaints. Receipts and Processing Branch. The Receipts and Processing Branch opens and organizes mail and manages various accounts, including deposit accounts, government accounts, bookstore transaction accounts, and consigned sales agent accounts. The Branch also handles customer refunds. The Laurel Operations unit employs 105 personnel and is made up of two divisions (see figure 10): the Retail Distribution Division and the Warehouse Division. The Retail Distribution Division supports processing of sales and federal agency reimbursable customer orders, while the Warehouse Division is responsible for receiving and shipping. The Laurel Operations unit is housed in two buildings, but in a recent GPO cost- savings reorganization, it relinquished 23,563 square feet to storage of paper. The Laurel Operations unit provides oversight of the Retail Distribution and Warehouse Divisions, including the operation of the Receiving, Storage, and Shipping Branches. Specifically, Laurel Operations ensures that all stock received in the Laurel complex conforms to contract manages bulk orders, addition or removal of items from bulk storage, and bulk quantities of all sales, By-Law Distribution, and reimbursable stock, deals with procedural issues regarding the shipping control and shipping operation sections, including shipment of outgoing orders, prepares and maintains government bills of lading, manages the pickup and delivery of materials in the Laurel complex by GPO truck drivers, and processes subscriptions and mails subscription and nonsubscription items. The Retail Distribution Division is responsible for the processing of sales and federal agency reimbursable customer orders. The Division employs 72 people. The functions of its branches are given in table 10. The Warehouse Division is responsible for receiving, storing, and shipping publications purchased by the Superintendent of Documents for its Sales of Publications program. Its branches perform receiving, storage, and shipping activities for both the Sales and Consigned Publications Programs (see table 11). It employs 30 staff. The Field Operations Division oversees 23 bookstores nationwide, providing local access to government information. The Division runs the Sales Agent Program, which allows federal agencies to sell publications on behalf of GPO, and operates the Public Documents Distribution Center at Pueblo, Colorado. The Division employs 139 personnel, 46 in the Pueblo Branch and 93 in the Bookstore Branch. Table 12 gives details of the branch functions. The Documents Technical Support Group has two branches (figure 11): the Operations Branch and the Planning and Development Branch. The Group, with 17 employees, is the smallest of the four Superintendent of Documents operating units. The Documents Technical Support Group provides management and support services for Superintendent of Documents programs. Functions performed by this group include defining requirements for automated systems and working with other Superintendent of Documents units on implementation, as well as conducting annual, cyclical, and special inventory projects. The Group is also responsible for control of the quality assurance, policy and procedures, and forms management programs, and serves as a liaison with Personnel Services and Financial Management Services on personnel programs, payroll, and budgetary matters. It provides management and support services essential to the successful operation of Superintendent of Documents programs. Documents Technical Support Group expenditures (table 13) were the smallest of the Superintendent of Documents’ operating units. According to GPO, in FY2000, the Group expended about $1.3 million. About 85 percent of its expenditures were for personnel compensation and benefits; most of the remaining expenditures were for rents, communications, and utilities. The Planning and Development Branch serves as the central coordination point for Superintendent of Documents-wide plans and programs, manages automated data processing (ADP) systems development for the Superintendent of Documents organization, serves as coordination point with the GPO Office of Information Resources Management and outside information system contractors, and reviews all information system requests to assure compatibility and consistency with overall data automation goals and objectives. The Operations Branch serves as the central coordination and control point for Superintendent of Documents activities that cross organizational and functional lines; manages the Documents Reports, Forms, Policies and Procedures, Directives, Property, Space Utilization, and Quality Assurance programs; and is responsible for Superintendent of Documents automated annual and cyclical inventory programs. The Superintendent of Documents manages seven major programs: (1) Cataloging and Indexing of federal documents, (2) the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), which is responsible for distributing federal documents to over 1,300 participating libraries, (3) GPO Access, (4) the International Exchange Service (IES), which provides for the distribution of government publications to foreign libraries in exchange for publications produced by their governments, (5) the By-Law Distribution Program, focused on the distribution of government printed materials as directed by law, (6) the Sales of Publications program, with 23 bookstores as well as telephone and mail-order sales operations, and (7) the Agency Distribution Services Program, which mails, at the request of agencies and members of Congress, certain publications specified by law. Cataloging and indexing are the tools used by the Superintendent of Documents to identify and organize government publications by title, subject, and agency, and provide this information to users through indexes, catalogs, and online retrieval systems. The Cataloging and Indexing Branch of the Library Programs Service manages the Cataloging and Indexing program with assistance from the staff of the Depository Administration Branch, who assign the Superintendent of Documents classification number to government publications. The Cataloging Branch publishes—under the legal authority of Title 44 U.S.C. 1710 and 1711—the Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications (MOCAT). MOCAT is made up of bibliographical records of government publications in tangible and electronic media published by all three branches of the government. The program maintains an online version of MOCAT called the Catalog of Government Publications (CGP). Records are added to the CGP daily, with about 22,000 records added annually. The CGP provides links from bibliographic citations to electronic documents. The Cataloging Branch also produces the U.S. Congressional Serial Set Catalog, establishes and maintains cataloging guidelines and policies, corrects catalog records, and prepares machine-readable cataloging records for the Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC) system. In fiscal year 2000, 30,124 titles were classified by the Depository Administration Branch, and 18,552 titles were cataloged by the Cataloging Branch (figure 12). This work was performed by 23 staff members at a cost of $2.7 million. 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 As shown in figure 12, the cataloging and indexing workload has steadily decreased from fiscal year 1991, when the Branch classified 62,000 titles and cataloged 29,000 titles, to fiscal year 2000, with 30,000 titles classified and 19,000 cataloged. The program is dependent on the Internet and the OCLC systems for the production of bibliographic records. Once created, the records are provided to GPO mainframe systems supporting various programs managed by the Superintendent of Documents. The depository library program is a national network of depository libraries designed to ensure free public access to government information. One of the largest Superintendent of Documents programs, it focuses on the acquisition and distribution of depository materials and the coordination of over 1,300 federal depository libraries in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Libraries that have been designated federal depositories maintain these information products as part of their existing collections and are responsible for ensuring that the public has free access to the material provided by the FDLP. Fifty-three of these libraries are designated regional libraries. Regional libraries receive all materials distributed through the FDLP and are required to retain all received government documents in perpetuity, although they may withdraw superseded publications from their collections. An advisory group representing the library and information community—the Depository Library Council—assists GPO in identifying and evaluating alternatives for improving public access to government information through the program. Established in 1972, the 15- member Council is structured to provide the Public Printer with a diverse range of opinion and expertise. The Library Division is responsible for managing the Cataloging Branch, the Depository Administration Branch, and Depository Services. The Depository Distribution Division manages the distribution programs of both the Federal Depository Library and the International Exchange Service through the physical receipt, storage, handling, and mailing of tangible government publications. The Division also coordinates, negotiates, and manages interagency agreements, as well as stand-by contracting and delivery carrier contracts to support distribution programs. In fiscal year 2000, it distributed 27,761 tangible titles, including 12,422 paper titles, 14,572 microfiche titles, and 617 electronic titles. As shown in figure 13, the volume of titles in paper and microfiche formats distributed to the participating libraries declined significantly during the last decade. The distribution of paper titles shrank by 8,714 titles, from 21,186 titles in fiscal year 1991 to 12,472 titles in fiscal year 2000. During the same period, the distribution of microfiche titles shrank by 20,679 titles, from 35,251 in fiscal year 1991 to 14,572 titles in fiscal year 2000. 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 The decline in the number of distributed titles was reflected in the decline in the number of distributed copies. As shown in figure 14, the volume of distributed paper copies distributed during the last decade declined by 3,379,000 copies, from 9,303,000 copies in fiscal year 1991 to 5,924,000 copies in fiscal year 2000. An even larger decline was experienced in the number of distributed microfiche copies, which declined during the same period by 11,088,000 copies, from 17,141,000 copies in fiscal year 1991 to 6,053,000 copies in fiscal year 2000. Copies (in millions) As shown in figures 15 and 16, a similar decline was experienced in the distribution of electronic titles and copies—including CD-ROMs, DVDs, and diskettes. Although the volume of the distributed electronic titles initially increased between fiscal years 1992 and 1998, it declined during the last two years, from 836 titles in fiscal year 1998 to 617 titles in fiscal year 2000. Similarly, there was a decline in the number of distributed copies, from the peak of 341,105 copies distributed in fiscal year 1997 to 240,965 copies distributed in fiscal year 2000. GPO Access is the principal mechanism used by the Superintendent of Documents for the electronic dissemination of government documents to the public. Established by Public Law 103-40, the Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993, GPO Access offers free Web-based access to information from all three branches of the federal government. The act requires that the Superintendent of Documents (1) maintain an electronic directory of federal electronic information, (2) provide a system of online access, and (3) operate an electronic storage facility. In addition, Senate Report 103-27 incorporated the Federal Bulletin Board as the fourth component of GPO Access. The Federal Bulletin Board is a free electronic bulletin board service of the Superintendent of Documents, enabling agencies to provide the public with self-service access to federal information in electronic form. The Bulletin Board is a component of GPO Access, providing utility and support files for use with online, searchable databases on GPO Access. GPO Access also provides other Internet-related services on a reimbursable basis to other federal agencies. These services include hosting of 16 federal agency Web sites and 32 agency databases of Government Information Locator Service (GILS) records. GPO Access fulfilled approximately 17 million document retrievals per month, with a total of more than 203 million retrievals in fiscal year 2000. Three documents—the Code of Federal Regulations, the Federal Register, and the Commerce Business Daily—accounted for over 172 million retrievals (85 percent of all the documents retrieved during this period). A major part of the GPO Access site supporting the Superintendent of Documents programs is the FDLP Electronic Collection. The collection is made up of (1) core legislative and regulatory documents residing permanently on GPO Access, (2) other remotely accessible documents maintained either by GPO or by other institutions with which GPO has established formal agreements, (3) remotely accessible documents that GPO identifies and links to but that remain under the control of the originating agencies, and (4) tangible electronic products, such as CD- ROMs, distributed to depository libraries. In addition, GPO Access provides access to Library Programs Service information pertaining to the FDLP. The Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services (EIDS), a unit of the Superintendent of Documents, manages strategic aspects of GPO Access, while the GPO Production Department manages and operates GPO Access on a day-to-day basis. The 22 EIDS employees are responsible for GPO Access strategic planning, the Web content management of GPO Access products and services, and the management of the Federal Bulletin Board. In addition, EIDS is responsible for providing telephone, e-mail, and fax support to users of GPO Access, and for electronic product sales and support. The day-to-day operation and maintenance of GPO Access is carried out on a reimbursable basis by the employees of the GPO Production Department. The By-Law Distribution Program distributes—primarily by mail— documents and other tangible information products for executive agencies and members of Congress. Section 1701, Title 44, U.S.C. prohibits the use of appropriated funds by federal departments and agencies to address, wrap, mail, or otherwise dispatch a publication for public distribution, except for certain specified materials. Such distribution work is required to be performed at GPO with the use of agency mailing lists. Nine categories of publications are specified for By-Law Distribution, including the Daily Congressional Record, Legations, the Official Report of the Supreme Court, and Presidential Documents. In fiscal year 2000, the program was supported by about three FTEs, mostly in the Laurel Operations Center, and $529,000 was expended. The International Exchange Service (IES) provides for the distribution of U.S. government publications to nearly 48 nations with 70 libraries in exchange for publications produced by their governments. Foreign publications are sent to the Library of Congress, which administers the program. The Library Programs Service manages the distribution component of the Library of Congress’ IES program. The Depository Administration Branch is responsible for acquiring publications and the Depository Mailing Branch is responsible for packaging, weighing, and shipping materials to IES foreign recipients. In fiscal year 2000, the Service distributed more than 360,000 paper, CD-ROM, and microfiche copies to 66 IES libraries. The IES program cost $687,000 in fiscal year 2000 and employed four people. On behalf of certain federal agencies, the Consigned Sales Branch of the Documents Sales Service distributes publications to recipients designated by agencies and charges for the cost of services performed. This is a Revolving Fund activity. The program expended $5 million and employed 50 staff. GPO sells government publications to the public for other government agencies. Although most sales are made through mail and telephone orders, the program operates 23 bookstores throughout the country and a distribution center in Pueblo, Colorado. Unlike most of the Superintendent of Documents programs, which are funded through appropriations, the sales program is funded through the GPO Revolving Fund. In fiscal year 2000, the program generated about $45 million in revenues, with expenditures of $58 million—a loss of about $12.2 million. The program employed 450 people, with most of the employees supporting order fulfillment and bookstore sales. Almost 74 percent of the 563,000 sales orders in fiscal year 2000 were mail orders, and there were 87,000 telephone and 58,000 walk-in orders. As shown in figure 17, the number of sales orders in fiscal year 2000 declined from 1,597,000 in fiscal year 1991 to 686,000 in fiscal year 2000. GPO officials believe that the shift from a print to an electronic format, with titles now available free over the Internet, has substantially reduced the demand for printed publications from GPO, especially for relatively expensive publications, such as the Commerce Business Daily and the Federal Register. Paper subscriptions to the Federal Register, for example, dropped off more than 50 percent from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 2000. Dollars (in millions) The decline in orders is reflected in the decline in revenues. Sales orders, sales revenue, and profits have been declining in recent years. As shown in figure 18, net sales revenues declined from $81.5 million in fiscal year 1991 to $45.9 million in fiscal year 2000. An additional factor contributing to the mounting losses is the destruction of unsold documents. As noted earlier, the sales program, as required by law, destroys a substantial number of unsold or superseded documents every year. In fiscal year 2000, it destroyed 1.9 million documents with a retail value of $22.3 million and an actual cost of $2.8 million. Dollars (in millions) As shown in figure 19, the sales program operates at a deficit, with a cumulative loss of over $32 million between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2000. The program lost over $12 million in fiscal year 2000. Dollars (in millions) There are currently 23 GPO bookstores located in cities throughout the United States. The GPO bookstore with the greatest sales is the main bookstore in Washington, D.C., which accounted for $785,789 in fiscal year 2000 sales. The Cleveland bookstore has the least sales, with $179,390 in fiscal year 2000 sales. Overall, however, GPO bookstores experienced a net loss of just over $700,000 in fiscal year 2000, with the Chicago bookstore losing over $250,000. GPO’s draft Sales Program 5-Year Plan (2001–2006) identifies numerous goals for achieving a revitalized and healthy sales program. These goals included reducing inventory to only 15 percent of the amount originally purchased, reducing the number of bookstores, enhancement of the U.S. Government Online Bookstore, improving services to customers, and establishing on-demand printing production for some types of printed items. The Office of the Superintendent of Documents and its four units—the Library Programs Service, Electronic Information Dissemination Services (EIDS), the Documents Sales Service, and the Documents Technical Support Group—are provided space and other services on a reimbursable basis by GPO. These services include administrative services, including payroll and personnel, rents, communications, and utilities, and information technology support. The cost allocation for these components is shown in table 14. GPO provides to the Superintendent of Documents administrative services and support, including payroll, other employee services, and services provided by the Office of Inspector General, OIRM, and others. In fiscal year 2000, the Superintendent of Documents expenses for administrative services and support were about $4.7 million, according to GPO. The largest share of the costs for administrative services and support— $3.4 million—was allocated to the Document Sales Service. In fiscal year 2000, the Superintendent of Documents expenses for the rents, communications, and utilities provided by GPO were about $7.3 million. The largest share of the costs for rents, communications, and utilities—$5.9 million—was allocated to the Document Sales Service. The costs to remaining units were far smaller—$645,000 for the Library Programs Service, $334,000 for the Office of the Superintendent of Documents, $224,000 for Electronic Information Dissemination Services, and $166,000 for the Documents Technical Support Group. Table 15 shows space allocation by organizational units. GPO has approximately 240 staff providing IT support, with the majority located in the Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM). The Superintendent of Documents also receives support from the Production Department. OIRM maintains and operates a mainframe computer and several mainframe software systems used by the Library Programs Service to manage the FDLP. The Production Department operates and maintains GPO Access for the Superintendent of Documents. All headquarters units, including the Superintendent of Documents, use GPO’s local area network. In fiscal year 2000, the Superintendent of Documents expenses for the information technology provided by GPO were about $3.5 million. The largest share of the information technology support cost was allocated to the Document Sales Service ($1.6 million), followed by Electronic Information Dissemination Services ($1.1 million) and the Library Programs Service ($700,000). IT support is supplied to four programs: the FDLP, Cataloging and Indexing, Sales of Publications, and GPO Access. The FDLP is supported by four systems: (1) The Depository Distribution Information System (DDIS), (2) the Acquisition, Classification and Shipment Information System (ACSIS), (3) the Automated Depository Distribution System (ADDS), and the System for the Automated Management of Text from a Hierarchical Arrangement (SAMANTHA). The four systems are operated and maintained by the GPO OIRM. One component of ADDS is maintained under contract by its developer. These systems are described as follows: 1. DDIS maintains depository library address information, depository item number selection profiles, item number and Superintendent of Documents classification information, and an interface to ADDS. The DDIS databases contain about 2.7 million records. 2. ACSIS is a large system with almost 1 million records. Its database contains bibliographic information for all titles in the depository library system that are ordered, received, processed, and distributed to depository libraries. The system has an interface to DDIS for Superintendent of Documents classification number, piece number, and shipping count information. 3. ADDS (formerly known as the lighted bin system) was procured by Engineered Systems, Inc., of Omaha. This system aids in the distribution of government materials to over 1,300 depository libraries. ADDS guides the physical distribution of publications to depository libraries by providing visual cues—via lighted bins—to personnel, showing which libraries should receive copies of the publications being distributed. ADDS operates with a daily batch interface with DDIS for item number, shipping count, depository address, and shipping list information. The ADDS database contains about 20,000 records. The system handling the actual lighting of the bins is maintained by Engineered Systems. Follow-up audit trails and report generation are performed on the OIRM mainframe. 4. SAMANTHA prepares OCLC bibliographic records in MARC (machine- readable cataloging) format for publication of the printed version of the Monthly Catalog, the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications, and the creation of cataloging tapes sold by the Library of Congress. The Library Programs Service is planning to replace these systems with an off-the-shelf Integrated Library System (ILS) in fiscal year 2002. However, if the depository library program were transferred to the Library of Congress, much of the information system support currently provided by the mainframe systems could be provided to the program by the Library’s ILS. The GPO Production Department supports the FDLP on a reimbursable basis. The Department maintains the servers with the FDLP Electronic Collection, develops interactive Web-based services for depository libraries—including Library Directory and Biennial Survey—and maintains the servers where the FDLP Desktop and Locator Services reside. GPO Access operates on more than 40 Compaq Alpha servers running the UNIX operating system and a dedicated Fiber Distributed Data Interface ring. Public access is provided through a broadband connection to GPO’s Internet service provider. Data are formatted and searched through the Wide Area Information Service (WAIS). In support of the Sales of Publications program, GPO has spent about $11 million since 1988 to develop and implement its Integrated Processing System. The system is to replace 15 stand-alone legacy systems currently supporting the Sales of Publications program, which officials stated are over 20 years old and do not meet GPO’s current and future needs. Currently, GPO’s goal is to complete acceptance testing of the contractor- developed system in June 2001 and begin implementing it shortly thereafter. Based on an initial list developed in 1996, the Superintendent of Documents has identified the following “Essential Titles for Public Use in Paper Format.” Available online? ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Available online? ! ! Advances in information technologies—and most notably in electronic publishing and the Internet—have triggered numerous proposals to reform and restructure the nation’s information dissemination infrastructure in general and the Office of the Superintendent of Documents in particular. These reforms range from a 1988 proposal by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) for the creation of a Government Information Corporation to the most recent proposal by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Sciences (NCLIS) to consolidate federal printing and dissemination programs in a newly created Public Information Resources Administration. In 1988, an OTA report addressed the impact of electronic technology on federal information dissemination, examined the infrastructure for federal information dissemination, and offered several institutional alternatives for the Superintendent of Documents. These alternatives included centralizing all or most government dissemination functions in one office or agency; privatizing the Superintendent of Documents; reorganizing the Superintendent of Documents as part of a legislative printing office; and consolidating the Superintendent of Documents with the National Technical Information Service and creating a Government Information Office or Corporation. In a 1993 report to the Superintendent of Documents, the Depository Library Council recommended restructuring the FDLP. The Council noted that as structured, the depository library program was foundering so badly that its very existence was threatened, and suggested restructuring the program to ensure its future viability. The Council proposed ten alternative FDLP models, ranging from the creation of a National Collection of Last Resort to the development of a network of super- regional depository libraries. No action was taken on the Council’s proposals. The next effort to reorganize the Office of the Superintendent of Documents came in 1993, when the House of Representatives passed the Government Information Dissemination and Printing Improvement Act of 1993 (H.R. 3400). Title XIV of the bill transferred the position, functions, and staff of the Office of the Superintendent of Documents to the Library of Congress. The bill stated that the Superintendent of Documents shall be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the Librarian of Congress. Concerned about the potential impact of the Internet on federal information dissemination, the Congress passed the Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act. The act directed the Superintendent of Documents to provide a system of online access to the Congressional Record and the Federal Register by June 1994. In response, GPO created GPO Access—an Internet portal that provides free online access to FDLP libraries. In December 1995, GPO made GPO Access available free of charge over the Internet. In 1998 a government printing reform bill was introduced by Senator John Warner as S. 2288—the Wendell H. Ford Government Publications Reform Act of 1998. The focus of the legislation was to restructure the federal printing laws to eliminate reliance on the constitutionally suspect authorities of the Joint Committee on Printing and to strengthen the Government Printing Office’s control of federal agency printing and other dissemination activities and its responsibility for providing permanent public access to government information. The bill would have abolished the Joint Committee on Printing and transferred many of its responsibilities to the House Committee on House Oversight and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The bill also would have renamed GPO the Government Publications Office, to be administered by the Public Printer. The production of all government publications, regardless of form or format, was to be centralized in the new Government Publications Office, except such production required by the Supreme Court and certain national security entities. A presidentially appointed Superintendent of Government Publications Access Programs would have assumed the duties of the current Superintendent of Documents, administering the GPO sales, federal depository library program, and GPO electronic documents access programs. The most recent proposal to reorganize the federal information infrastructure was made in January 2001 by NCLIS. The Commission proposes the creation of a new agency whose primary mission is to serve as the federal government’s focal point for providing timely dissemination and permanent public availability of its public information resources. This agency, provisionally called the Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA), would be in the executive branch and would bring together under one management the National Technical Information Service, the programs currently under the Superintendent of Documents at GPO (including the FDLP), and other information sales and dissemination programs from all three branches of government. In the Commission’s sweeping proposal, the Superintendent of Documents would be renamed the Superintendent of Public Information Resources, reporting directly to the head of the PIRA. The FDLP would be renamed the Public Information Resources Access Program (PIRAP), and the Federal Depository Libraries would be renamed Public Information Resources Access Libraries (PIRA Libraries). The basic structure of the FDLP or the congressional designation and other criteria for becoming a federal depository library would not be changed. 1. Our report refers to security issues within the context of authenticity. Specifically, we note that authentication provides the assurance that a document has not been surreptitiously or accidentally modified, which are problems that can be avoided with appropriate security controls. 2. The report has been revised to reflect that electronic documents may offer greater functionality than paper documents. However, we disagree with the Public Printer’s statement that the only barriers to the use of printed documents are basic literacy and physical disability. In fact, other barriers exist including geographic distance from the library where the printed information is maintained. In addition, the costs associated with maintaining paper documents may limit what is readily available. 3. Our report states that GPO would face major challenges—including ensuring equity of access—in moving to an environment in which government information is disseminated solely in electronic format. GPO raises valid concerns about how to achieve equity of access in an electronic environment and how this would be more achievable by the Library. Resolving such concerns is beyond the scope of what we were mandated to study. 4. We agree that total program costs may increase if the number of the documents eligible for inclusion in the depository library program also increases because of the availability of documents on the Web or other factors. We also recognize in our report that electronic dissemination may result in costs shifting to end users and depository libraries. Finally, an economic analysis of dissemination costs is beyond the scope of this study, but we do include the results of GPO’s own study of the costs of converting to an all-electronic depository library system. 5. The policy decision of whether to transfer the library program is one that rests with the Congress. Our role is to provide factual information—including advantages and disadvantages—that can be used to inform the decision-making process. The question of how public access to government information might be improved by transferring the depository library program to the Library is a valid one but clearly beyond our charge. 6. Our report points out that if a decision is made to transfer the depository library program, policymakers may want to consider limiting the physical movement of staff and equipment. This is offered as a measure for ensuring the success of a potential transfer, in response to our mandate. 7. The Public Printer is correct in stating that the depository library program is much larger in scope than the Library’s National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped. In recognition of this, our report notes that the Library cautioned in its studies that administering the depository library program would considerably expand the Library’s mission. 8. A transfer of the depository library program would clearly require changes to legislation. However, a detailed discussion of the specific changes needed would be difficult, if not impossible, without knowing the details of a policy decision that, to date, has not been made. The Public Printer’s question concerning the effect of a transfer on fugitive documents is valid, and our report highlights the concerns of the library community related to this issue. 9. The Public Printer is correct in stating that if a transfer is directed, spreading GPO’s current overhead costs over the programs remaining at GPO would result in increased costs for those programs. He is also correct that some reduction in overhead costs may, as a result, be warranted. We would expect that this issue would be addressed during transition planning. Further, we would expect that the transition team would identify and consider all options for dealing with this issue, including transferring the positions supporting the depository library program to the Library. 10. If a decision is made to transfer the depository library program to the Library, the Librarian would, of course, have to address the priority of the transferred program within the context of the mission of the Library. 11. The Public Printer also points out many detailed implementation questions that our report does not address. We believe such questions can be addressed if and when a decision is made to transfer the depository library program and the details of the functions to be transferred are known. 12. In regard to the impact on transferred employees, the report identifies the concerns of unions representing GPO employees and states that issues such as seniority, salary rates, and bargaining rights should be addressed during transition planning. 13. In regard to a potential transfer of GPO Access, our report does not suggest that the Library duplicate GPO’s preparation of the data bases that are derived from the printing processes currently managed by the production department or that dissemination of the databases be moved to another location. If a decision is made to transfer the program, we are confident that detailed transition planning— conducted by the Library and GPO—would result in an appropriate and cost-effective division of responsibilities between the two organizations. 14. The report has been revised to reflect that GPO Access is a program. 15. The report has been revised to reflect that GPO Access also includes GPO’s U.S. Government Online Bookstore. A discussion of the remaining components is contained in appendix V.

Summary: Electronic dissemination of government documents can reduce distribution costs and make government information more usable and accessible. However, the transition to a paperless environment will require that several challenges be overcome. Transferring the depository library program to the Library of Congress entails both advantages and disadvantages. In studies done in 1993 and 1994, the Library concluded that the depository library program was not inconsistent with the mission and functions of the Library and that it might be appropriate for the Library to oversee this program. However, the Government Printing Office (GPO) believes that the Library is not an appropriate home for the depository library program because the Library's mission and operations are inconsistent with a large-scale information dissemination program. In addition, the studies and librarian organizations raised concerns about the potential negative effects of the transfer on public access to information and the availability of funds to maintain the current program. If a decision is made to transfer the depository library program, the concerns raised by library organizations and employee unions should be addressed. One option for addressing these issues is to form a GPO/Library transition team to develop appropriate strategies.