ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES Newsletter of the Federal Depository Library Program [ PDF version ] [ Back Issues ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- January 15, 2001 GP 3.16/3-2:22/02 (Vol. 22, no. 02) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Printer's Comments on NCLIS Report Draft January 4, 2001 The Honorable Martha B. Gould Chairperson U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 820 Washington, DC 20005-3552 Dear Ms. Gould: The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), under your leadership, is to be commended for taking on the ambitious and difficult task of assessing Federal information policy and recommending changes for the future. However, I am unable to support the proposals in the draft NCLIS report, "A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination," or the draft legislation that has resulted from this effort, "The Public Information Resources Reform Act of 2001." The NCLIS study characterizes public information resources as a "strategic national asset." I agree that this level of importance should be assigned to Government information (although I am concerned that treating these resources as a commodity, rather than as mainstays of our civic culture, may have some unforeseen consequences). I also agree that Federal information policy faces a number of challenges from electronic information technology. These challenges, however, do not lead me to believe that a wholly new Federal agency, accompanied by a new and highly complex set of interagency roles and responsibilities, is necessary, feasible, or even desirable. There already exists in the Federal Depository Library Program (supplemented by the electronic authority provided by chapter 41 of Title 44, U.S.C.) an effective statutory mechanism for providing comprehensive, equitable public access to Government information. With sufficient funding, this system is capable of meeting the challenges of the electronic information age: guaranteeing permanent public access, ensuring authenticity, providing finding aids, supporting users of electronic products and services, and meeting the continuing demand for information in printed formats (which is still considerable). The FDLP has already made demonstrable progress in these areas, a fact to which the NCLIS draft report regrettably pays little attention. The FDLP has articulated and embraced a new vision of a primarily electronic FDLP in the Internet era through its 1996 Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program and its 1998 report, Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document. Last year, more than half the new titles included in the FDLP were in electronic format. We have convened the Government's primary interagency working group on permanent public access, and taken a variety of other steps toward improving and expanding public access to electronic Government information holdings. In view of this progress, I do not believe Congress would establish and fund an alternative agency-at an unknown cost-to perform substantially the same function. I have strong reservations about the executive branch function proposed by NCLIS because it would remove information dissemination from the direct control of the people's elected representatives, where it most appropriately belongs in our form of government. I do not agree that information dissemination is an "inherently executive function." It is Article I of the Constitution that requires Congress to inform the public of its activities-and so the activities of the Government-not Article II, and it is from within the legislative branch that the Government's information has been disseminated for most of this Nation's history. I am not aware of any comparable information dissemination capability-nor statutory responsibility nor record of commitment to comprehensive and equitable public access-in the executive branch that would lead me to believe that it would be the superlative location for that function. I am concerned by the Commission's proposal to separate printing procurement authority from GPO. This was a central tenet of the "reinventing Government" proposals regarding GPO that were advanced in 1993-94, and it was not accepted by Congress. Separating the printing procurement program from GPO will subject those procurements to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), rather than GPO's Printing Procurement Regulations. The FAR's treatment of small purchases will end open, competitive procurements of most print orders flowing through the program, significantly raising costs to the taxpayer. Other major issues regarding Government printing are left unaddressed by the draft report and legislation. Would agencies be permitted to expand their own in-plant printing operations? Would they be permitted to conduct their own printing procurements through waivers? How would the cost of printing left with GPO be addressed? The brief attention given to the future of the Government's printing capability in the draft report and legislation is problematic, and I urge the Commission's staff to review GPO's testimony on the "reinventing Government" printing proposals delivered before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in February 1994. I had hoped that the NCLIS study would examine in depth the feasibility of combining the National Technical Information Service with GPO, as I proposed before the 106th Congress in 1999, and perhaps discuss the ramifications of combining the FDLP with the Library of Congress, as is being reviewed now by the General Accounting Office at the direction of the conferees on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of FY 2001. These are specific issues that could impact public access to Government information significantly. I urge the Commission to address these issues in revising the draft report. Sincerely, MICHAEL F. DiMARIO Public Printer