CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS I6 790 77 Issue Brief N0 EONGER ?§0PERry “"5 OHM saw 0 V »s5RARy am/g;ahingfan Hnivergiggy “ 7. :2 a ;z*"~¥e' , 4 ,7 ‘Q2 *.‘ V41 ’ L :4 :4. U 47 ‘Q43,’ ,‘ ' S «j~‘-* ' f’; w'r4~_ .;;».-.2.-I. . . . .7 2' f_."§} ._\V ' . .... .-.t 9. it-. W; 17 198$ GOVERNMENT PRINTING REFORM ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB79077 AUTHOR: Relyea, Harold Government Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR Issans srsrnu DATE ORIGINATED 91492422 NDATE UPDATED Qggggggg FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0123 cRs- 1 IB7 9077 UPDATE-0 1/23/so ;§§Q§-2§£lE£E£9! Government printing reform, pursuedi through the recodification of the public printing chapters of title 844, 0.5. Code, has become necessary, according to reform proponents, as a consequence of (the technological advances that are changing the generation, production, and dissemination of Government information, as.well as by a growing public demand for improved and increased access to that information. This issue brief addresses the administrative management aspects of the printing reform effort, including the reorganization of the Government Printing office (GPO). QAQEEBQQED-é!2.£QLlQX-A!ALI5I§ when title 44, the public printing and documents title of the 0.5. Code, was first enacted in 1968 (P.L. 90-620; 82 Stat. 1238), the codification .largely systematized statutes which had been located in that title over a considerable period of time. In reporting the codification legislation (H;R. 18612, 90th Congress), the Senate Committee on the Judiciary expressed the intention of the sponsors, saying "there are no substantive changes made by this bill enacting title 44" (S. Rept. 1621, 90th Congress). Many of the printing and-publications dissemination provisions of title 44 trace their origin and language to the Printing Act of 1895 (28 Stat. 601). In light of the vast number of changes in printing technology that have occurred during \ 3 past two decades, various portions of title 44 are thought to be archaic and, in many ways, incapable of meeting modern needs. Thus, an effort began ‘within the Congress to revise the substance of nine of the first ten chapters) of the title for purposes of bringing about Government printing reform. This issue brief is confined to the administrative management aspects of mthis reform movement, including the reorganization of the Government Printing Office (GPO). Neither) the printing technology considerations nor the labor-management dimensions of this reform aactivity are included in thist discussion. The Reform Effort Convinced that Government printing reform has become necessary as a, consequence of both technological advances and a growings public demand for improved and increased access to government information, the Joint Committee on Printing began the effort to revise title 44 in early 1978. one of the Joint Committee’s first actions in this regard was to establish an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to identify the major issues and policy questions involved. )i in reforming the printing chapters of title 44 of the 0.5. Code. The Chairman of the Joint Committee solicited comments from federal agencies, private industry, trade associations, labor unions, the librarya community, and other interested organizations. The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, whichi included representatives from some of these same groups among its members, rcqan deliberations on Nov. 8, 1978; These hearings, .which were open to 2} blic participation, continued for 13 weeks and consumed nearly 2,000 pages of transcript record. According to the panel's report of May 23, 1979, do. the Joint Committee: I ! The [Ad Hoc] Committee sought to identify issues, explore CR5-~ 2 1379077 UPDATE-01/23/8;0 options, and develop essential questions. The Committee's hearings were not intended to produce specific legislative recommendations and not to present solely official agency or organization positions. The members were encouraged to be a “devil's advocate" when they felt the discussion was not addressing allpaspects of a particular problem so as to explore the full range of issues and alternatives. The topics analyzed in depth by the Ad Hoc Committee included the; following matters; a _ 'v Tj'” -—the extent to which centralization of the Federal Government'sl printing and publishing program is possible or desirable and the role of the Government Printing Office in that program; --the extent to which Government information should be accessible and the formats in which it should be available; —-how costs.for such information should be assigned; and the roles and relationship between public and private disseminators of Government information; --the impact of new technology on the Government‘s printing and information dissemination system, organizational structures, and personnel; fiPthe role of the depository library program; benefits, if any, to competing suppliers of Government information; and the extent of fiscal support the Federal Government should lend to programs providing public access to its information; ‘ --the determination of who should establish and administer policy -in the generation, production, and dissemination of Government information; and the extent to which enforcement tools are necessary in this policy area; and 1 --the determination of the cost of Government information to the; citizen; the possibility of subsidizing some users of such information; the extent to which Government information constitutes an economic good and/or a social good; and the role of the market place in these policy matters. Another project bearing upon title nu revision was commissioned by the Joint Committee under a contract with Coopers and Lybrand, a Washington management consulting firm. Performed from Mar. 16, 1978, through Oct. 31, 1978, this study, according to the resulting report, sought "to identify for the JCP organizational, managerial, financial, and technological areas for A improvement and/or further refinement." Coopers and Lybrand found "no »sweeping changes are warranted" for the Government Printing Office: “our ;overall assessment is that GPO can take pride in the degree to which that r organization has solved or is ameliorating [its] well-publicized problems of recent years.“ However, this view did not diminish the firm's support for the Joint Committee's announced reform of title #4: “...we believe that the 1 present time is appropriate for a comprehensive study of the full range of Government printing.“ In conducting interviewswith GPO managers during the course of gtheir study, Coopers and Lybrand also found support for the reform effort amc these personnel: 1 7 ...there was a consensus that Title 44 is in need of revision because it does not reflect advances in printing technology and is often ambiguous. This absence of technological considerations in Title H4, the respondents indicated, makes it difficult for the CBS"3 managers to operate or restructure their units in an effective manner that utilizes new technology. specific sections of Title an should be revised were not offered. However, details on which $!§.§§§9£E-E£22Q§§l By early June of 1979, a draft reform bill, recodifying and overhauling nine of the first ten chapters (chapter 15 remains unchanged) title 44 was circulating in the Congress. Prepared by the the major provisions of the proposal were as follows: Q2§2E§£-§£ executive branch. The Government Printing Office is created as an independent establishment. No longer will it be a part of the legislative branch. Neither will it be specifically a part of the It will be independent of both and willw serve the needs of the entire Federal Government. ‘A Board of Directors will be established to set policy for Government printing. _ The Board will assume the policy functions which are currently shared between the Joint Committee on Printing and the Public Printer. ‘ The Board will consist of ten members, only seven of whom will be voting members. i Of the seven voting members, three will be chosen by the President -—with the advice and consent of the Senate -- from the general public. ’ of the three general public members, one will be named as as Chairman of the Board. The other four voting members will be chosen by the President from four specific constituencies which have been intimately involved in this area in the past: the private printing industry, organized labor, the library community and the information industry. The Chairman of the Board will serve a single five-year term. i The other six voting members of the Board will serve i three—year terms with the possibility of reappointment. It is intended that the positions on the Board will be part-time, with the exception that the Chairman will be fullvtime. The three non—voting members of the Board will be the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, or his designee; the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, or his designee; and the Director of the Office of Management, and Budget or his designee. Official actions by the Board of Directors will require four (u) affirmative votes. The Board will prescribe regulations for carrying out procedures in Government printing. The proposed regulations must be submitted to Congress for possible legislative veto. Pu2li2.?.r.i..I2.ti;1.9.§:<:rzi2:e.§ IB79077 UPDATE-01/23/30 substantively Joint Committee,n cns- n 1379077, upnAmr—o1/2 ~— A Public Printer will be hired by the Board of Directors o manage the day-to—day operations of printing production. .- It is mandated that all Federal Government printing will be done.by or through the auspices of the Government Printing Office. - Agencies or other entities may apply to the Public Printer for waivers from this requirement. - All materials printed or produced_at_Governmentmexpense - (including xerox or other photocopying production) will bear the legend, "Produced at Government Expense". §ha2ier-Z; Qengresai 22; P inting - Printing services for the House of Representatives will be controlled by regulation of the Committee on House Administration; printing services for the Senate will be controlled by the Committee on Rules and Administration. - Printing matters affecting both bodies will be controlled by joint regulation. shearer 2; 2i§:rihnti2n.2£.2n2lic Dosnmsnrs - A Superintendent of Documents will be hired by the Board of Directors. - The Superintendent will be responsible for maintaining a complete collection of all public documents and with distribution of public documents. -alt is mandated that the distribution of all public documents shall be by or through the auspices of the Government Printi Office. « - Agencies or other entities may apply to the Superintendent of Documents for waivers from the above requirement. - Public documents made available for sale shall be priced at cost equal to the costs of production and distribution (No longer will the sale of popular documents subsidize unpopular documents). - The Superintendent of Documents shall maintain a comprehensive index of all public documents, as well as issue a catalog showing prices and locations of such documents. - Depository libraries are maintained as they have been in the past. A Qhgpgeg 11; Information Resources Management: - The head of each governmental department, agency or other entity must appoint an information resources manager. «— The information resources manager shall be responsible for coordinating all of his agency's printing services and document distribution with the Public Printer and Superintendent of Documents respectively. pirises;l2ne2n§-£r2zi§i2n§; - The Government Printing Office will, in the future, be required to go through the authorization process prior to appropriation of funds., A A CBS—-5 ‘ IB79077 UPDATE-01/23/80 P - Effective Date is January 1, 1981." §gf9;g_;§§gg§ In the aftermath of the circulation of the draft Public Printing 1 )rganization Act of 1979, at least two issue clusters have begun to emerge. The first of these pertains to the organizational status of GPO; while the reconstituted Government Printing Office clearly is no longer a legislative branch entity, its future location appears to be somewhat uncertain. Where does it stand on the organization chart of the Federal Government and what effects impact upon Congress as a result of this relocation? Are there any benefits other than a significant reduction in the legislative branch budget? As a consequence of the President's appointment power with regard to the leadership of the new GPO as well as the fiscal and administrative authority of the Office of Management and Budget with regard to budget preparation? and submission, does the Government Printing Office become an executive branch agency? If such is the case, does Congress want its printing to be provided‘ by an entity outside of the legislative branch, and perhaps subject to influence from the executive branch? Further, would the new GPO be an agency subject to such important statutes as the Administrative Procedure Act (5 USC 551 et. seg.), the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552), the Privacy Act (5 USC 552a), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 USC 552b)? Similarly, .what ‘portions of pervailing public employment law, in all of wits ramifications, extend to GPO personnel? Another group of issues derive from the organizational independence vested in the new GPO. Are two committees of Congress sufficient and~ adequate for monitoring the activitiesv of the Government Printing office? Should congressional veto authority extend beyond, disapproving regulations to certain important administrative or policy decisions by GPO?x should the veto L ;hority of Congress be exercised at the committee level or by one or both Houses? Should provision be made for the removal of the principal leaders of GPO for specified reasons? Should greater control be exerted over the GPOA "revolving fund through the secretary of the" Treasury or the Comptroller? General or both of these officials; should an alternative to the revolving fund concept be instituted? As these and other issues wsurrounding the Government printing reform effort continued to be aired, the draft recodification bill was introduced in both congressional chambers (see below) and hearings began on Ju1y 10 when ’the Subcommittee on Printing of the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration inaugurated a joint proceeding on the legislation. Reform organizers are seeking a mark-up by mid-September and final adoption of the proposal before the conclusion of the first sessio of the 96th Congress. 9 - P hearinme-éi§2n§§i2n-and;ez9er2t. Q2l1.1Qi-l222 i The initial witness for the House—Senate hearings on iGovernment printing reform was John J. Boyle, the Public Printer of the United States. hr. Boyle criticized the “proponents of change" saying they "do not realize, ,or they ignore for the sake of expediency, that Title 44 has been changed, modified, tavended, corrected, as xneeded, countless times. over the period. of hits a .stence." He added that "many of the currently obsolete provisions of the present law have already been overridden by the Joint Committee on Printing using its Section 103 authority to remedy waste and duplication.“ 1 A i Indicating that his comments were “intended to be constructive and in the best interest of the Government," the Public Printer urged reforming title mu 5' I l cns- 6 1379077 UPDATE-O1/23/8':0 "without changing the basic concepts of a Government Printing Office in the Legislative Branch with direct oversight by the Congress.“ In my opinion, H.R. 4572, which would terminate the existence of the Joint Committee on Printing, create a Board of Directors of the Government Printing Office, reduce the duties of the Public Printer without a decrease in pay, elevate the superintendent ofUD_9_cuments,_Dy ,r:w_o_,_q1:adres,without n,oticrera_bly;r in_c,re_ased dutiresr g and then superimpose a 7-member board and a large staff to do what is already being done efficiently, would interfere with the business—ike, cost effective operation of the Government Printing office and would raise the cost of printing to the Congress and to the rest of the Government. The proposed reorganization of the Government Printing office is unnecessary and has no logical explanation. As an alternative, Hr; Boyle asked the Members of the two congressional panels: " .;. why not consider transferring all of the present functions of .the Joint Committee on Printing to the Government Printing Office, together with the remedial powers necessary to enforce the regulations, by making they Government Printing office an independent agency in the Legislative Branch of the Government?“ To those who have argued that “the passage of this bill will result in savings totaling millions of dollars,“ he responded, saying "I see no savings anywhere in the bill that could not be accomplished without the passage of this bill.“ .The only way that savings can be effected in the Congressional printing is to reduce the number of titles printed, reduce the number of publications distributed free or destroyed, or reduce the cost of printing by increasing productivity in GPO. I do not think this bill will decrease the amount of Congressional printing and I do not see that it will raise the rate of productivity which is currently being accomplished by automation; hr. Boyle concluded by offering 30 separate points of question, comment, and clarification directly pertaining to the bill. Mr; William M. Lucianovic testified on behalf of Coopers and Lybrand, an independent management consulting firm which had prepared a study of selected GPO operations for the Joint Committee on Printing in 1978. This witness _ indicated: our general observation was that GPO had made admirable vprogress toward resolving many of the well-publicized problems of recent years, but that areas for further refinement or improvement still existed. our report contains many observations and recommendations, and those of interest to yH.R. 4572 include such areas as (1) organizational characteristics of GPO, (2) document pricing procedures, and (3) the scope A of public printing and distribution; with regard to organizational matters and management concerns, Hts : Lucianovic noted: “ ;.; we observed a planning process that produced plans with relatively few milestones, targets, or action-oriented schedules; a CBS- 7 IB79077 UPDATE“01/23/80 P management-by-objectives and productivity program that was not fully integrated with planning and budgeting; and the absence of a comprehensive 1 'entory of management information requirements.“ In addition, with regard to the Superintendent of Documents, "we found GPO bookstores operatingi somewhat autonomously" and “saw little formal control over inventory mix, destruction of documents, or operating expenses versus sales revenue;“ Commenting ion document‘ pricing practices, the witness said: “GPO's accounting methods are generally labor intensive and somewhat limited for internal management purposes; .;. GPO's billing procedures need improvement with regard to itemizing costs and adherence to original cost estimates; .;. pricing formulas used to determine retail cost of documents are based on estimates that are sometimes questionable because of the lack of information on components such as sales volume, fixed costs, etc.” And in the area of the scope of public printing and its distribution, the witness noted “there is no central nource of information as to the total number of public documents produced each year or the cost of such documents." In addition, Coopers and Lybrand found “no central, accessible source of .document distribution information in GPO." Applying such study findings to the provisions of the Public Printing Reorganization Act, hr; Lucianovic suggested the following ibenefits to the GPO as a consequence of the new board management structure: « §ggggg_p9;igy;g;m. From the combined perspective of ‘all Board members (from both the user community and the contributing constituencies) the policies and regulations issued have a better opportunity yto reflect and be responsive to current trends and B conditions; - !i§ihilitz-end-a229nntehilitza With its new placement more squarely in the mainstream of Government printing and distribution, the GPO will tend to be more visible to the public and more accessible by all users, Executive as well as Legislative. Service to all users should be enhanced. By the same token, the Board of Directors will be able to exercise a strong oversight role since it alone will be responsible for that task. Q2erati2nal-£lezi2ilitz— Regulations and iguidelines issued by a representative Board will allow assimilation of previously undetermined technological, sociological, or economic factors rather than be unduly constrained by established legislation. .p ; c c } with regard to document pricing matters, the witness indicated the refonm legislation would resolve “the long-standing question of what costs are to he ; zovered in the sales mprice of each document“ (Section 70H); wound facilitate rendering a costu estimate to customers in advance of actua1 printing and holding to that price; and "vesting responsibility in the Board of Directors for review and approval of the annual business-type budget program for the functions financed by the Government Printing OffiQe- revolving fund and for establishing an accrual basis accounting and reporting 3 A I clas- 8 IB7 9077 UPDATE-O1/23/30 I system should facilitate the adoption of recommended improvements in customer billing procedures, cost accounting, and, in general, financial informati . reporting." A And, with regard to the printing and distribution of public documents, high praise was expressed for the Information Resources Manager concept in tno regards: first, it will require each department, agency, and entity to closely examine and hopefully assess the size, scope, quality and cost-effectiveness of its printing and publication program. Secondly, it will create, within the GPO, a central repository of information concerning public documents which can be invaluable to the effective dissemination of the information contained in the documents and increasing the public's access to such documents. _ In closing, Mr. Lucianovic commented that “the text of the bill leaves unclear the pinpointing of internal operational responsibility“ at GPO. He suggested that the legislation might indicate the, Public Printer, as empowered by the proposal, would also function as the chief operating officeri of GPO. In addition, separate Assistant Public Printers might be established for the areas of (1) printing and binding, (2) document distribution and sale (Superintendent of Documents), and (3) administration and finance. According to the witness: "In this way, all functions =- production, distribution, a ‘ administrative (and financial) support ——» are vested in line management organizations with a top manager who reports to a~ chief operating officer .(the Public Printer)."« Testimony was next presented on behalf of the American Library Association by Francis J; Buckley, Jr‘, a Documents Specialist with the Detroit Public Library and chairman of the ALA Government Documents Roundtable, and Lois Mills, Documents and Legal Reference Librarian at Western Illinois University and chairwoman of the Depository Legislation Subcommittee of the ALA Legislation Committee.« These witnesses indicated: Recognition of the importance of the role of the Superintendent of Documents in distributing and otherwise making publications available to those in government and the public is an essential element of the bill; The separate and equal status of the Public Printer and Superintendent of Documents will permit the visibility and attention appropriate to not just the production of information, but the use of information. The witnesses were particularly supportive of the concept of GPO being reconstituted as an independent establishment within the Executive Branch; AIt was felt that this changed status “allows for increased oversight and public comment,“ Two areas of concern, however, were given special attention by the ALA witnesses. The lack of specific directions to the GPO Board, in CRS->9 IB79077 UPDATE-O1/23/80 many instances, leaves us with the uneasy feeling that a great deal is left to their discretion. Two factors exacerbate this situation. First, the Chair is the only voting member of the Board who is present a significant portion of the time. Any regulations adopted by the Board may bear the heavy imprint of the Chair, despite the availability for public and Congressional review. Secondly, the accountability of the Board, or since the Chair is the day-to-day governor, the Chair, is largely left to the annual appropriations process. It is our feeling that increased participation on the ’part of “part-time" Board members would effectively balance the decision-making process. A second concern regards the lines of management control between the Board and the staff assigned to perform administrative and support functions for the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents. We believe it is important that both the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents have independent authority over those administrative and support services under their jurisdiction. If one must defer [on] the requirements for computer services, security services, or other functions, to the other, this would seem to lessen the potential effectiveness of the co—egual branches of the Government Printing Office. Concluding their testimony, the witnesses submitted specific comments on rious,sections. of the reform legislation,. seeking clarifications and, technical modification of certain provisions. After the first day of joint hearings had recessed, Representative Frank Thompson, Chairman of the Committee on iflouse Administration, announced certain technical amendments to H.R. H572, to be iofferedw during committee mark—up of the bill, on the House floor. . Q2lz.._1.2:...J..‘»22.9. The second day of joint hearings on the Public Printing Reorganization Act .began with testimony from Dr. Daniel Boorstin, the Librarian of Congress. He indicated that it was not his purpose "to take a position on the structure or organizational place in the Federal establishment of the Government Printing office, but to discuss what I consider to be major policy issues with respect to the dissemination of information through Government publications." In {this regard, Dr. Boorstin indicated: "1 would hope that the new legislation‘ would make it possible for the Government Printing Office to become a more active publisher." He then added the following observation: D We need to help all our citizens find their way in the growing wilderness of information. A good beginning is a congressional mandate to make material produced at Government expense more readily available.. A revised GPO might seek new ways of publishing information from Government sources which would enlist private enterprise as well i as Government agencies. ; » 1 In terms of problems which the legislation presented for ithe Library df Congress, Dr. Boorstin inoted that National Union Catalog compilatioms CBS“1O IB79077 UPDATE-O1/23/80 published by GPO would be subject to free distribution to depository libraries under the bill, with the effect that "a subsidy of more than ¢ million. would have to be appropriated to continue production and publication.“ In addition: we do not consider it practical to price each item at cost plus 10 percent. If we did so, the price of printed catalog~cards—sold~toslibraries/would:be—s:~--~— is drastically increased, and they might become prohibitively expensive for small libraries. Should your Committee report these bills out I would hope that some way will be found to solve this problem. The Librarian submitted certain specific comments on the legislation regarding the definition of "public document,“ existing international exchange authority (44 USC 1719) pertaining to Government publications, existing authority (44 USC 1718) pertaining to government documents for the use of the Library of Congress, and the mandate (44 USC 1333) for the .preparation of the national high school and college debate handbooks; when pressed to offer a view as to the necessity for the legislation, the Librarian said “much would have to be changed before I could support this billk" . hr. Townsend Hoopes, President of the Association of American Publishers (AAP), was the next witness to offer testimony. AAP ‘numbers among i , members more than 300 publishing houses, including virtually all of the major commercial firms. Mr. Hoopes joined Dr. Boorstin, saying: "We, too, seek to encourage the broadest and most efficient flow of information to the public." ‘However, the witness did not believe the pending reform legislation supported this objective; He said: Realization of the Committee's goals requires a flexible legislative structure: one which permits creative and innovative arrangements to develop, which affords individual governmental agencies discretion and which encourages active participation by the private sector. The pending bills do not do any of this. They are too broad: they attempt to embrace virtually all information created or funded by the Government: LThey are too centralized: they attempt to establish the Government Printing office as the sole channel through which all Government information will flow to the public. They are too restrictive: lthey afford only limited opportunity for the private sector to participate in the dissemination of Government information. Mr; Hoopes then proceeded to elaborate upon this basic observation: with regard to the breadth of the bills, he indicated: “They appear to give the reorganized GPO preemptive rights to control the printing and distribution virtually all information funded, in whole or in part, by the United States Government; the definition of ‘public documents‘ seems to vastly increase the scope of the new GPO's jurisdiction; and the substantive provisions of the bill clearly confer upon GPO the right to preempt anyone else from engaging in these activities without permission.“ CBS-41 IB79077 .UPDATE-01/23/80 Addressing himself more specifically to the definitional consideration, p Mr. Hoopes said: First, the definition of public documents clearly embraces works produced by United States Government employees or officers in the course of their official duties. In copyright terms, these would be referred to as Works of the United States Government. second, the definition of public documents seems to embrace two related types of information generated and paid for by the Government, but which may be prepared on behalf of the Government by outside, usually private, sources. These are (a) reports representing the official views of a Government agency or which that agency is required by statute to prepare; and (b) works intended primarily for internal use of the Government. Third, the term, public document, as used in Section 101, can be -- and we fear will be - read to embrace any other 1 work in which the creation, preparation, or dissemination is, in any way, supported by Government monies. The definition can quite literally be read to bring within the term “public document“ all information -- articles, books, monographs, etc. -- which are the result, no matter how tenuous, of Government-supported research. ' The witness indicated the reform legislation would add to GPO's authority ytwo areas: "(a) official and internal reports published _by private businesses on behalf of the Government under grant or by subcontract; and (b) all other works in which the creative process has, in any way, been supported ‘at Government expense."l Mr. Hoopes testified that there “is no real gain in giving the GPO any control--much less preemptive control--over official and internal reports published iby private business on behalf of Government agencies under contract or grant." The witness concluded that the bills “are therefore confiscatory: they make: privately created works into public documents“ by extending GPO authority to contracted studies and projects. The legislation was also thought to create copyright problems: "... the bills appear to tell a private author that if his research has in any way been supported by Federal funds, the end product is a ‘public document‘ ;..." Elaborating on this point, Mr. Hoopes said: a These bills remove all incentive for creative efforts by private authors and publishers alike. They deny author and publisher the rewards of creativity. .This is not, as some cynics may suggest, merely a question of financial reward, although that, too, is a problem. ,Presumably, if the bills are enacted, the GPO would pay. royalties to authors of works supported by federal iresearch grants. But, because the GPO has preemptive control -- a threshold monopoly -— over publication and distribution, the author's bargaining power in the matter ; of royalties will obviously be greatly reduced. The i financial incentive to creative effort would be , commensurately diminished. w i Ultimately, according to the witness, "the bills deny a role: to private cns-12 1379077 UPDATE-0 1/23/so sector 'pub1ishers -— both commercial and non—commercial - in f‘: dissemination of federaly-created information." According to ur. Hoope , private publishers would be in competition with GPO to print the end products of research supported by the Federal Government. "We do not think,“ he concluded, "that such a competition is in the public interest generally or in the interest of the legitimate purposes of this bill, in particular." Summarizing the position of the Association, Mr. Hoopes said: “...the definition ofj'public“documents*~is; at best7~toormurky~and7“‘at“ worst, “too expansive; and that, coupled with the preemptive rights conferred. upon the GPO [with] the enactment of these bills, will be abandoned and the scope of GPO authority be limited to "works prepared by officers and employees of the 70.5. Government as part of their official duties." Present provisions in the bills apertaining to private sector participation in _the printing or distribution of government documents were thought to be "too restrictive," "place decision-making authority in the wrong hands," “impose unreasonable limits upon private sector publication of Government works,“ "impose onrous conditions upon private sector publication of Government works," and are otherwise "cumbersome." i A Joining Mr. Hoopes in his testimony before the House-Senate panels was Dr. A. Fred Spilhaus, Jr., Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union and both.the Director and an Officer of the Council of Engineering and Scientific Society Executives; The Council numbers among its members the publishers of more than 500 professional journals which reach a constituent audience of 1.5 million individual engineers and scientists. The American Geophysical Union publishes 17 journals and annually produces approximately . dozen books. The concern expressed by Dr. Spilhaus derives from the fact that “the overwhelming proportion of the works we publish are - in one way .or another ‘° supported by the Federal Government." The Public Printing Reorganization Act seriously threatens this relationship and could require that scientific and technological studies financed by the Federal Government be subject to publication regulation by GPO.. According to the witness: In my view, any expansion of the scope of GPO jurisdiction in the area of publication of original scientific and technical papers will cary with it a decline in the efficacy of peer review and editorial processes; and a decline in these functions will cause a commensurate decline in the quality of technical and scientific research and writing in this country. Dr; Spilhaus also noted thei detrimental effect the reform legislation could have in terms of the effective distribution of scientific and technological studies produced at government expense. He said: Through the private sector's selective, but widespread, channels, we are thus able to assure a sensible cost benefit relationship in the distribution of governmentally-supported works. we are able to assure that a work will not be wasted by providing diversity in the channels of distribution which exist and giving authors and Government agencies the right to select the channel best suited for the particular work. No single, centralized entity, public or private, no CBS’13 IB79077 UPDATE-01/23/80 matter how well funded, could perform the sophisticated and selective distribution functions now performed by this interaction between the producers of information and the multitude of private sector enterprises. ) Finally, the witness viewed the reform legislation as placing cumbersome and severe limits upon private sector involvement in Government printing activities. The relationship which exists between private sector publishers and the government is truly a cooperative one. The Government, directly or indirectly supports development of a large measure of the information we publish. We, on the other hand, provide services which insure and enhance the quality of the work, and we provide for its effective distribution and thereby increase its utility. These are functions which I believe the private sector is uniquely suited to provide and upon which the Government quite properly depends. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement with the ultimate beneficiary being the American public. Commenting specifically on the provisions of the reform bill, the witness noted that exemption for publications from GPO .printing requirements “can cnly‘be of ‘limited duration‘ and can only exist for as long as an undefined overnment interest may require.‘ Unless we are mistaken, this virtually- rules out any standing arrangement permitting private sector publication.“ .Further discouragements to private sector involvement in public printing derive from the prior approval requirement for each publication being produced by the private sector. Two separate permissions are required -- one for printing and one for distribution - from two separate officials. such procedures could slow the actual production of a publication. i finally, the private .sector producer of a public documents must contend with the, requirement of distributing the item to all depository libraries; This is an impossibility; It would mean that, in the case of many journals, the number of copies required to be distributed to depository libraries for free would substantially exceed the total number of copies we now sell to our subscribers; No publisher can live with such a requirement. I might add that the requirement seems especially inappropriate in a bill which is designed to eliminate waste: it would result in publications merely gathering dust on the shelves of a library which has no readership for them. The witness concluded, saying: By expanding the scope of GPO jurisdiction, by centralizing the authority over the flow of information and by imposing cumbersome and severe limits upon private sector involvement, the cooperative arrangement [between government agencies and T E cns-14 IB7 9077 UPDATE-0 1/23/ado non-governmental publishers] will be impeded. our ! concern is concededly motivated in part by self-interest: we are, as I have said, dependent upon the Government -— both directly and indirectly -- as a source of funding for the works » we publish. But this self-interest does not rest just on profit. We also have an abiding interest in advancing science and technology for the benefit. of the American people. » The next witness was Mr. John F. Darrow, Senior Vice President of the American Paper Institute which isna national trade association of pulp, paper and paperboard manufacturers in the United States. The Institute consists of approximately 175 manufacturers which produce about 90% of the nationfis output of these products. The witness opened his testimony with the observation that . i > ...the present method of operation has been quite successful. Printing has been delivered as required. Distribution has worked out reasonably well. I have been familiar with this operation, from the government and the industry side, for more than 40 years. During that time there never has been a taint of scandal concerning its operations. This is a tribute to the members of the Joint Committee [on Printing), the staff of the Committee and the Government Printing office, .as well as our industry. Any change which might be made in the current method of operation should be structured to continue this fine performance.. ‘Turning to the ifirst structural consideration and the role of the Government Printing Office, the witness said: The primary responsibility of the Government Printing Office is, as I understand it, to provide timely printing services for the Congress such as the daily ggggrgggiggal 322229. the Q2ngr2§§i2nal-2i;es29rz and the various public documents of Congress such as bills, joint resolutions, records of hearings and other documents.... we have serious reservations with respect to any change which would remove Congressional control over the Government Printing Office by creating an independent establishment. We believe that the interests of I Congress are best served by a continuing oversight of ‘ the organization which performs services which are vital to the very operation of Congress. with regard to GPO staff organization and leadership personnel, Mr. Darrow commented:v ’ h The Public Printer, the Superintendent of Documents and the individual...whose description is one of an Administrative Officer, all would report directly to the part-time Board. The Chairman of the Board cns—15 1379077 upnAmn—o1/23/so also would report to this part-time Board. I do not understand how this type of organization would lead to efficiencies. .Three operating individuals, the Public Printer, the superintendent of Documents and the , Administrative Officer would report to a Board which meets one or two days a month. These three individuals could expect to receive very little direction for their operations from such a part-time Board.‘ The Chairman would have no power other than his stature as a member of. the Board on a full-time basis. An organization such as the Government Printing Office requires one chief officer with all of the authority that a chief executive officer of a department, agency or business would have. As an alternative to the structural plan provided in the reform bill, the witness offered the following: We suggest that the same type of relationship that the General Accounting Office now has with the Congress might well be a model for a reorganized Government Printing Office. Under this concept the chief executive of a reorganized Government Printing Office and isuperintendent of Documents Office would be, in . fact, the chief executive officer with full executive ‘powers. Reporting to him would be the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents. For oversight purposes, he would be responsible to the Committee 7 of Congress deemed most appropriate and would be required to report annually to that Committee. To be effective, the individual should be appointed for a long term, perhaps longer than the five years proposed in the bills now under discussion. In any event, we believe that the GPO is generally recognized as effective, and a similar organization for public printing and the distribution of documents would seem to more adequately and efficiently meet, the needs of the Congress and the general public. Under this concept an advisory committee, somewhat of the type envisioned for the Board in the bills under discussion, could be appointed to advise the agency on a periodic basis. Finally, the witness noted: I If a Board of Directors is considered desirable for a new organization, we would like to offer suggestions concerning the composition of this Board. [T]he draft bills provide for 7 voting members, 4 of whom must be chosen from four specified categories:i - mthe printing and reproduction industries, organized labor, the library community and the information industries. We question the appropriateness of creating specific Board memberships from particular CBS-16 IB79077y upnATE—o1/23/do 1 segments of the economy. It is quite conceivable, if . 3 not likely, that the Board could thus become fractionalized. We would prefer that the law not mandate that certain members should be selected from identified parts of the economy. If, however, Congress deems it necessary\ to require designated representation, we do not see why a distinction is made between the library community and the information industries;, We would consider. that the lib,r_ar_y;_;;omm_un_ity__.would be quite representative of whatever is included in "the information industries.“ we would, therefore, recommend that if this approach is to be seriously’ considered, that these two categories be combined into one. ~ I Summarizing his position, Mr. Darrow concluded: We believe that the present system has produced good results as it relates to the printing activity. While we are not as well versed in the distribution side of the operation, testimony during the Ad Hoc Committee meetings would suggest that this area could be improved. Improvements might well result from changes in the present organizational structure. However, we believe that more study is needed, especially concerning th matters we have discussed. . The final witness of the day was Mr. Burke Stanard, Chairman of the Board of the Printing Industries of America and President of the Riverside Press in ‘Dallas, Texas. The Printing Industries of America is a national federation of regional, state and city trade associations, representing over 8,700 member commercial printing companies throughout the United States. At the outset of his testimony, Hr. Stanard observed that "Title 44 is a very~ curious law" which “has been subjected to many changes which, unfortunately, were aimed at problems of the moment and it appears that no thought was given to integrate its many provisions into a cohesive whole.“ Turning to the legislation at hand and the matter of reconstituting GPO as an independent entity of the Government, the witness commented: while we have no irreversible position that the Government Printing Office should remain forever more in the legislative branch, we do not feel that a clear and convincing case has been made for its establishment in other than the legislative branch. we feel that such a course is quite drastic and susceptible to great risk; Unless very carefully handled, such a procedure will lead to possible disruption and uncertainty. we recognize that some in the Government have well founded opinions that the legislative branch should not be producing the printing for the executive branch. we feel that the present system has worked reasonably well in this regard and with a few changes which we will propose can be improved so that the executive branch will have the flexibility they deserve. /. cns-17 1:37 9077 upouz-o 1/23/so B Continuing, Mr. Stanard said: At your request we submitted comments on the revision of Title 44 to the Joint Committee last year. Basically, those comments said that to the greatest extent possible, the Government should procure its printing and publishing needs from commercial sources. Secondly, that there should be an individual within the government who has governmentwide authority for printing (in our comments we proposed the Public Printer); And, finally, that there should be a central point of procurement for printing and that central point should be the Government Printing Office. with this as our departure point, permit me to comment on the legislation before the Committee. The witness then cited various points of concern within the reform bill. "Among these matters: “...the present definition_ of printing needs to be improved because it may be interpreted to exclude processes not named;“ the proposal “contained a provision which seemed to preclude the Chairman from having a background in those areas of most concern to the GOP;“ an annual report should be required «of the Public Printer with certain specified information to be included in this account and this should be filed with the Joint Committee on Printing and the» Committees on. Appropriations of each ugressional chamber; “n-.those who may be eappointed,, despite their‘ good intentions and personal integrity, may subject themselves to charges oft conflict of interest in instances when such conflicts may be more perceived .than actual;“ should the President be restricted to specific categories in making» GPO Board appointments Tor would a requirement for a "general background rather than a specific one" be more appropriate.“ In regard to the powers of the Board, we would like some clarification on whether or not the regulations which they will promulgate will be issued pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. working drafts of the legislation have contained provisions that the GPO would be an agency for the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill as introduced contains no such provision. Our difficulty arises in the fact that the GPO is wdenominated as an independent establishment. We know that other independent agencies of the igovernment have contested their coverage by the Administrative Procedure Act. We believe that\ the GPO, if it is constituted as an independent establishment, should be subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, or if it remained within the legislative branch, provision should be made for formalized hearings, public comment and recognized procedures for the issuance of regulations. _ _, _____ __,.___ _.._..__ ._._.A- ._.- _ The witness also expressed concern over the legislation's lack of clear intent in another area. * i ' 3 cns—1a IB79077 UPDATE-01/23/no I J I would hope that the Congress does not intend to end the successful Federal printing procurement program, but if that is their intention I believe that the » legislation should so state. On the other hand, if it is the intention of the Congress to continue this program which provides jobs in every section of our country and allgnslthelfiovernmentrtorobtain its..H._ printing needs in a most economical and efficient manner, that intention should be so stated. Accordingly, we believe that such an amendment giving contract authority to the GPO should state that in the furnishing of public printing, the commercial sector should be used to the greatest extent possible. Hr. Stanard gave specific endorsement to two aspects of the reform legislation, saying, first, that his organization was “foursguare behind :a .system of centralized printing procurement. we recognize, however, that in certain limited instances where a special need has been shown, ,an agency should be authorized to handle its own printing procurement." And, second, ithe provision requiring the “Produced at Government expense" legend on all government material was judged “to be a very good one.“ with regard to the application of this legend, two modifications were suggested: "first, that +commercial stock items be exempted so that their cost to the Government is not increased and, secondly, that this would be an appropriate section provide for the protection of private copyrights in Government documents where appropriate." ' Concluding, the witness said: ...we see no clear demonstrated need for the scrapping of the present Government Printing Office and the creation of a new one. It disturhes us that one of the benefits to be realized by the Congress from the creation of a new GPO is a reduction in its budget and personnel count. We feel that such an action is merely accounting sleight-of-hand. We feel that if the Congress wishes to reduce its budget it should do so by taking responsible steps and not by casting off the GPO into a sea of Government confusion. A Q2lz.Z2i.l222 The initial witness for the third day of hearings on the Public Printing Reorganization Act was Werner Grosshans, Associate Director, Logistics and Communications Division, General Accounting Office. In his preliminary remarks on the legislation, Hr. Grosshans indicated that, prior to 1973, “GAO's work at GPO was primarily directed to certifying to ”the accuracy of GPO's financial statements" but, “since 1973, GAO has issued 24 reports on GPO activities.“ A list of these studies was 'submitted for the heari record. Commenting upon GPO's acceptance of GAO recommendations contained in these reports, the witness said: “We believe thati the Public Printer has been quite responsive and has implemented many of the improvements we have suggested.“ A A CBS-19 IB79077 UPDATE—01/23/80 In February 1977, we issued a report to the? Congress (LCD-77-408, dated February 22, 1977) which compiled our recommendations and actions taken by GPO. we pointed out that although some improvements were still needed, printing costs had been . reduced, productivity had increased, and processing time for orders had been reduced. Hr. Grosshans next briefly surveyed the history and evolution of the current Government printing structure, supplying a more detailed written account of these matters for the hearing record. He then turned to present Federal printing conditions, saying: i Today's printing needs can be viewed in terms of production, procurement, and distribution. Production needs consist of (1) congressional work, which is almost always considered by the customer to be urgently needed, and (2) Executive work which consists of short turnaround items, specialty items, and longer leadtime items. The latter obviously is suitable for outside procured printing. Distribution needs consist of providing either general publications or technical reports to libraries, subscribers, and single order customers. To meet these needs, a structure is required consisting of broad « options for in-house printing capacity and procurement _capability and a flexible distribution system.m After ‘discussing these matters in more detail, Mr. Grosshans then ‘discussed the adequacy of~the present Government printingx structure.n win part, he observed: . Today's printing structure can be viewed from several perspectives. --Does the present structure conform to normal Government practices from the standpoint of separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches? --Does the present structure conform to prudent business practive from the standpoint of management and controls? A i --Does the present structure afford the executive branch control over its own printing needs which represent a preponderance of today's printing? * In general, the answer to all 3 questions is no. u constitutionally, there has been a general separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. For the most part, the legislative branch has the responsibility to make the laws while the executive branch is responsible for implementing them, with sufficient controls to assure effective operation. This is not the structure followed in the Joint Committee on Printing's management and control of all Government printing. Also, one could argue that from an organizational structure, today's printing structure is inappropriate. In essence, we have the Joint Committee on Printing i 5 CR5-20 1379077 UPDATE-0 1/23/80 not only reporting printing bills, writing regulations, and establishing criteria to be followed in printing, but we also have the same body supervising the actions of GPO and the various agency printing A plants (about 300) which have to be specifically chartered‘ by the Committee. These printing plants have to report certain performance characteristics to the Committee on a monthly basis, as well as get approval for certain _~ _rlw acquisitionssof plantmequipment-/_As-iseapparent—from_ _-~--.ee—~w pthe above, a due separation normally expected in a management structure does not exist in this case. In essence, the Joint Committee on Printing is involved in the planning, the doing, the reviewing, and the enforcing. Concluding his discussion of these matters, the witness said: Perhaps more importantly, the current structure does \not provide executive agencies sufficient flexibility to exercise their own expertise in procuring printing or to establish the size and workload for their own printing plants. while a centralized control is needed over executive agencies' printing, we believe this control belongs in the executive branch. Hr. Grosshans then presented three possible alternative structures f reorganizing Government printing, offering the advantages and disadvantages he foresaw regarding each model. The first option involved creating “a vcontrolling organization within the executive branch (perhaps the General Services Administration) with GPO retaining responsibility for legislative branch printing.“ Another alternative is to create a single agency structure, with an Executive Officer as the key individual. He could be assisted by an ,Advisory Board of which he could be a member. He could then have assistance for Printing, Distribution, and possibly Administration. » The third possibility was the arrangement created by the Public Printing Reorganization Act, “but it is a more drastic change than we had previously considered necessary.“ while GAO had not completely evaluated all of the provisions of the proposed reform legislation, the following assessments were offered: 7 éfiléfiiégéé --Potential savings through the centralization of the management of all Government printing in an independent agency. -Potential savings through the centralization of the management of the distribution of all public documents in an independent agency. -acre effective distribution of documents to the public; cns-21 I 1379077 UPDATE-O1/23/870 Ql§§Q!§§E§H§§i --Additional cost of setting up more depository libraries, maintaining complete collection of public documents, and centrally indexing and cataloging all public documents. -—Specific language problems in the bill and lack of clarity (these suggestions can be presented later, if so desired). The next witness was Mr. Paul G. zurkowski, President of the Information Industry Association, a trade association of commercial firms engaged in the creation and marketing of information products, services, and systems at the production, distribution, and retail levels. while the Association has long worked pwith the Joint Committee on Printing with regard to relevant information policy issues and participated in the deliberations of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Revision of Title 44, Mr. Zurkowski indicated his group was "disappointed" with the proposed reform legislation. “We believe ,the bill falls short of the expectations created by the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee .Report and that considerable additional work on the bill is needed." Elaborating upon his concern, the witness said: This bill, in its present form, places both policy making and policy implementations responsibility in the hands of GPO's Board of Directors, who are given virtually no basic policy. _guidance in law, but who are instructed to recommend policy and program options to two Congressional Committees in the form of “regu1ations."v ~ These two Committees will then accept or reject the the Board's policies. And that will be that. In other words, Congress as a whole is being asked to delegate its basic policy making responsibilityv regarding the printing and dissemination of .Government information to one Board of Directors and two Congressional Committees. This approach appears to circumvent the normal legislative process and could be construed as undemocratic. vIn partial solution to this dilemma, the witness recommended that “a section of Congressional Findings be inserted” in the reform bill “to provide ... a basic policy direction.“ i hr. Zurkowski also expressed concern that the printing reform legislation was on a “fast track" schedule and that “more time than has been scheduled is vpneeded to study the specific" language vof« the complete bill, to clarify certain ambiguities in the legislation vand to develop appropriate amendments.“ He further noted that the “problems created by the ‘fast-track’ ischedule are exacerbated because several key provisions of ithem legislation are vague or ambiguous, making itl difficult to understand the effect or ; ;ent of the legislation.“ Apparently, one of the primary objectives of the bill is to transfer the Government Printing Office from the Legislative Branch of the Government. However, it is I I I cns-22 11379077 UPDATE-01/23/80 unclear what the status of the new entity established by the legislation is. Section 301 identifies it as an‘ "independent establishment of the Government.“ An independent establishment, as defined by 5 0.3.6. 104, is an establishment in the Executive Branch. This entity, however, has a board of directors which includes two ‘ members of Congress. It is directed to submit certain reports concurrently to the President and the Congress. It is directed in Section 310 to submit its budget in accordance with Section 104 of the Government Corporation Act (31 U.S.C. 809), a law which establishes certain management procedures for government corporations. The working Draft of H.R. #572 specifically provided that the new entity would be deemed an "agency" for the purposes of the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (consistent with treatment accorded other Executive agencies). That provision does not appear in the introduced version of the bill, but we have received staff assurances that GPO would be considered an agency for APA purposes. Section 313 exempts GPO procurements from the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. Section 309 includes’ special rules governing labor-management relations. Section 901 gives Congress the power to set its own rules regarding public printing and distribution services, while encouraging, “to the greatest extent practicable," that Congress should use GPO. we have been advised ‘informally by staff that most of the general laws, executive orders, and OMB management circulars applicable to Executive agencies may apply to the new Government Printing Office, unless specifically superseded in the ‘ legislation. However, this is not apparent on the basis of the text of the legislation. Further, without the technical and conforming amendments, the extent of the unique treatment of this agency is not clear. The witness then asked that such technical and conforming amendments as were anticipated for the reform legislation be made available for comment as soon as possible. He also recommended that a memorandum be prepared "which clearly and concisely analyzes the character of the new entity and surveys the applicability of existing laws, executive orders, and OMB management circulars, and of new laws, orders, or circulars which, when enacted or promulgated, would affect Executive agencies generally.“ He also asked that the term "information industries" be clarified within the legislation; Mr. Zurkowski next addressed two major considerations confronting Congressv in the reform legislation -- centralization of [the printing structure and maintaining an open marketplace of ideas and‘ information under Title 44. with regard to the first consideration, the witness argued that the present centralized printing‘ structure has resulted in neither efficiency of operation nor effective managerial control. The Association's position is that the Government should move away from the centralized concept in the current law and the proposed organization in H.R. H572, away from the concept of a potential information "czar," to a more decentralized concept in which control is exercised CRS~23 IB79077 UPDATE-O1/23/80 by holding each agency responsible for meeting Congressionally mandated standards. Under this approach, Congress would establish explicit general principles which would guide the action of each executive agency; Greater authority would be in information resource managers for printing and disseminating the information generated by the agency. Each manager could be required to coordinate the activities with a reconstituted GPO and to comply with certain basic printing, cost-accounting and bibliographic control requirements. However, each manager would be primarily accountable to the Congressional authorization ’ and appropriation committees which have jurisdiction over his agency's activities. pA newly constituted GPO, wherever it is located, would be responsible for implementing the general policy guidelines established by Congress and would be authorized to provide certain printing and distribution services to Government entitites. To assure that legitimate Congressional concerns regarding printing requirements are met, special rules could be established to assure Congressional control over its own printing. with regard to the second consideration, hr. Zurkowshi observed: "Only the existence of a multiple source information marketplace can provide the public with a choice of information products and services on a competitive, cost effective basis.“ Such a marketplace can be maintained, according to the witness, only if Government, upon entering it, does so "very carefully, subject to certain rules.“ hr. zurkowski then stipulated the rules which he aught the Government should follow: “... assure that the users have a gggige between publicly and privately available information sources;" "... _the Government should operate on a full cost recovery basis;“ and w“.;- the Government should attempt‘ to use direct, rather than indirect, [user] subsidies.“ The witness indicated that, of these rules, only the second appeared to be addressed in the reform legislation and all of the points required clarification in the proposal. He then concluded his remarks, saying: In the final analysis, the well-being of a democracy is based on the quality of information its citizens use in meeting their responsibilities of citizenship. It is this need for diverse sources of information which leads to the extraordinary special attention our Constitution gives to freedom of press and speech. Similarly, it should be this concept which leads this Congress to do all within its power to prevent the Government from becoming the only source of information about the Government. The language and interpretation of the bill represent a decision point for Congress in steering this nation toward a more controlled or a more democratic information facility within the country. we urge the Congress to turn toward a more democratic information policy. The witness then offered approximately two dozen specific recommendations for improving and clarifying the reform bill. The third witness of the day was Mr. Donald Koepp, University Librarian of Princeton University, who presented testimony on behalf of the Association of inesearch Libraries. Specifically, the Association supported the following cas—2u IB79077 upon.-3-o1/23/ago provisions in the legislation: 1. The increased authority of the Superintendent of Documents to accomplish the most effective distribution of Federal documents to libraries and their service facilities. ‘ 2. The improved bibliographic control of Federal documents which will, in.turn,wimproveitheireaccessre__ m_w and use by libraries and their users. 3; The establishment of a comprehensive collection of Federal publications to provide permanent, assured and rapid access to retrospective Federal publications which will be preserved. This development will provide a highly desirable cost/effective backup for the nation's libraries and their users. Hr. Koepp concluded his remarks, saying: we want to note the great improvement of the depository library program over the last several years but we also want to point up that more still remains to be done. We recommend a judicious definition of “public document“ to assure maximum dissemination of information produced at public expense so that the people of this country can have access to the information which their tax dollars have ‘made possible. Specifically, we also recommend-maximum cost/effective development in the use of microform applications in the publication and dissemination of Federal documents. The final witness of the day was Mr. Henry .Lowenstein representing the National Association of Government Communicators, an organization composed of writers, editors, information specialists, and other publishing professionals, most of whom work within the executive branch and, according to the witness, whose "work is affected, directed, and sometimes confounded by Title 44." Mr. Lowenstein portrayed the Association's interest in the Public Printing Reorganization Act, saying: P ,we have sought reform of the Federal publishing system because the system subordinates to the printing process the research, writing, editing, design, dissemination, and other activities of publishing in which we are engaged. We think that is wrong. Printing is important. But it is only part of the publishing process and it should not dominate the other parts. Mr. Lowensteim observed that the departments and agencies “are required by law to disseminate information about vtheir program, regulations, and research" but do so under the handicap of not being able to “make their C publishing decisions.” Most of this ultimate authority is vested in the Joint Committee on Printing or the Government Printing Office which “control the timing and manner in which executive agencies linform the public about their regulations, programs, and data." This arrangement, in the view of the witness, “both interferes with the ability of executive agencies to inform the public and impairs the public's access to information.” cas-25 1379077 upon.-2-o 1/23/30 The theory of the Federal printing system is that having a central agency serve as a clearing house for all government printing will result in economies of scale and encourage greater efficiency. There will be savings all around. 7 The reality is often otherwise. In Mr; Lowenstein's view, the “reality” was "that they GPO sometimes becomes a bottleneck, causing delays and increased costs;" “that publishing agencies, though they are required by statute to produce and pay the cost of publications, cannot specify with certainty the design, colors, typefaces, paper stock, and quality of their publications;" "that publishing agencies may not sell their publications to the public, though limited giveaway is permitted;“ “that prices GPO charges the public for executive branch publications are not based on the cost of producing the publications by GPO contractors but rather on the cost that would have been had the work been done within GPO;" "that when a publishing agency takes delivery of a .publication and finds the type smeared, the pages misaligned, the binding faulty, it cannot [directly) point these problemsx out to the contractor responsible;“ "that editors, designers, and publishers may not even complain directly to GPO;" “that a publishing agency which receives an unsatisfactory printing job may not withhold payment;“ and “that, of all the expenditures an agency makes for services and supplies ... only the expenditures for printing and reproduction ... —- less than 1 percent of the total -- are subject to double review.“ ~ Acknowledging that the reform legislation “seeks to remedy many of these problems," the witness indicated, however, that “the remedy is incompletea“ 'He then suggested various changes to strengthen the bill. One recommendation offered was that “the definition of ‘public document‘ be modified so as to avoid the inclusion under Title 44 of news releases, machine-readable data files, microform, and audio or visual presentations." Another recommendation was that “as a policy-making body, the [GPO] board can function better separate andw apart from GPO,“ thereby reducing "the wtendency for the board to base its policy decisions on its operating role as the GPO board of directors.“ G Mr. Lowenstein also urged judgments “of whether public information materials are responsive to the Government's and the public's needs ...“ fiber made by the publishing agency, not the printing agency.“ with regard to the composition of the new GPO Board, the Association suggested “representation for publishing professionals“ in addition to the interests presently designated and inclusion of a voting representative of ,the executive branch. “The bill should make provision for the removal, if that should become necessary, of board members, probably by the appointing authority, the President.” T Further,’the witness recommended removal “of the provision ... which makes mandatory for executive agencies to obtain their printing services through, GPO.“ Instead, it was argued, the departments and agencies "should have the option to submit their work to GPO for printing or procurement or to arrange for their own printing.“ O ' ’ Hr. Lowenstein noted that, while the bill provides for a waiver from the cRs—26 1379077 UPDATE-O1/23/80 mandatory use of GPO services, the proposal "offers no ... criteria to guide the Public Printer and the Chairman of the Board in considering waivers a*‘ it offers no appeal from the decision of the Chairman of the Board." It was felt that the legislation "similarly should be amended to remove the requirement that public documents originated by executive agencies be distributed by GPO." While the bill was praised for requiring that each publication would ureflect‘its“own cost, the”witness’observed "wé’see”no“provision in H.R; "0572 that will help reduce inflated prices.“ He‘ noted that proposal indicated mthat "the price at which a public document is offered for sale ‘shall not be less‘ than the cost of production and distribution, thus setting a minimum price, but not a maximum.“ Similarly, the Association applauded the idea of permitting “a publishing agency to set the price of a publication below cost if it is prepared to pay the difference. But, the present language troubles us because it seems to permit the GPO board to set the price below cost and require the publishing .agency to pay the difference.“ The witness suggested “that this section of the bill include language that will prevent GPO from setting prices of sales publications without consulting the publishing agencies.“ And with regard to the legislation's requirement that the Superintendent ‘of Documents provide reference and referral services to libraries,, the Association urged “that the language be clarified so that the Superintendent of Documents does not duplicate services already provided by other public ar‘ —commercial institutions." Hr. Lowenstein concluded his remarks, saying: we welcome H.R. 4572 because we believe that reform of Title an is sorely needed. We believe that reform should go in the direction of liberating Federal publishing from domination by the printing process. We believe that the best way to accomplish that is by deregulation, by giving publishing agencies authority to control their own publishing activities, with Congress exercising control through the normal authorization, appropriation, and oversight process. . P £2lz_2§;.1222 The first witness for the fourth day of hearings on the Public Printing Reorganization Act was Hr. William J. Boarman, President of the Columbia iTyprographical workers Union Local 101, who appeared on behalf of the Joint ucouncil of Unions, “representing approximately 7000 employees at the GPO.“ He expressed support for the reform bill "because, in our vopinion, the vlegislation is long overdue and much needed." Continuing his remarks, Mr. Boarman said: From our viewpoint as GPO employees, the mechanism of supervision by the Joint Committee on Printing frequently resulted in all matters being handled by the administration of the GPO, without due regard to any other interest. The Joint Committee on Printing became a court of last resort, frequently being dragged into operational problems at the‘ cns-27 * 1379077 UPDATE-01/23/80 worst possible time in the legislative process, when other congressional demands were more pressing. Plain and simple, the GPO is a business, and you can't run a business with a legislative body. Elaborating upon this observation later in his testimony, the witness offered the following evaluation. The present system of management and operations has produced some serious shortcomings. 7 First, it has resulted in an inward-looking, one-sided approach to management, without any structured procedures for the airing of different points of view. iThere is a lack of a mechanism permitting the meaningful participation by the groups that use the information produced -- such as libraries; the groups that perform work under contract to the GPO —~ such as commercial printing plants; and the groups that represent GPO employees -- the labor unions. Nor is there any opportunity for input representing the public interest. Second, the existing exceptions to Section 501 of Title A4, providing for printing to be done outside the Government Printing Office, are so broad as to make the basic principle almost meaningless. The decision—making process by which the Public Printer currently determines whether an exception applies and printing should be done outside _the Government Printing Office, is not subject to any of the normal checks and balances which should be present where decisions of such magnitude are made. Third, the entire procedure of outside printing requires close supervision, increased scrutiny and oversight review, something which has been sorely lacking under the present system. The present system gives the appearance, if not the actual opportunity for impropriety. Specifications on bids may be tailored so that bids may be submitted by only a few firms with the equipment specified in the bid documents. The point is that there is a need for scrutiny of the bidding procedures, as well as the GPO inspectibns of firms which bid on GPO work. Mr. Boarman indicated T full support for the proposed printing reorganization as a solution to these dilemmas. "We believe that supervision of the GPO by a Board of Directors will be ’highly beneficial and. produce , increased efficiency in terms of ongoing operations, full utilization of the facilities, skills and. equipment available, and neededm‘ independent supervision of the outside procurement operations.“ We understand that the policies, procedures and regulations developed by the Board of Directors, will be promulgated, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act which governs almost all other Federal agencies. This is a much needed reform, since the process of implementing policies and regulations at the GPO has been left in the main part to the discretion of the Public Printer, without any obligation to follow the basic concepts of fairness iembodied in the Administrative Procedure Act. CBS-28 IB79077 UPDATE-0 1/23/ 80 Expressing support for "the concept of a broadly representative Board," Mr. Boarman, however, added that "we see no need for a non-voting member the Board representing the Office of Management and Budget." The witness did suggest, nevertheless, that a non-voting representative of the executive branch be placed on the GPO Board and proposed “that such a representative be from the Department of Labor, or the head of a printing activity in any other Executive agency, or a member of the Government Communicators, which is composed of editors of publications of each Federal agency.“ Indicating firm support for the objectives of the labor-management relations provisions of the reform bill, hr. Boarman specifically addressed two important aspects of the legislation in this area. The principal innovation in the Bill is the provision that collective bargaining impasses will be resolved by arbitration. In the private sector, of course, bargaining impasses are resolved by strikes and lockouts. Strikes are forbidden in the Federal service as they are under most state and local collective bargaining statutes. The states and their subdivisions have found that where strikes are forbidden, arbitration is a fair and sensible way to resolve bargaining impasses. we believe that the experience of GPO and its unions, with an analagous procedure at the direction of its Joint Committee on Printing this year demonstrates that impasse arbitration is workable and merits support. we suggest, however, that the Bill specify the procedure 'for selecting and compensating the arbitrator and have included suggested language in an attachment to this testimony.. The Bill also confers jurisdiction upon the Federal Labor Relations Authority to resolve unfair labor practices and questions concerning union representation at GPO. We support the principle that such matters should be resolved by a third party rather than by the GPO, which is an interested party. But subchapter 71 of Title 5, which governs the Federal Labor Relations Authority, is keyed to a system of labor—management relations that is far more circumscribed than that now in effect at GPO and contemplated by the Bill .... Since ... the Bill provides that ‘Labor uanagement Relations for the Government Printing Office [are to] be ... based on principles of collective bargaining over wages, hours and working conditions contained in Federal law relating to employees in the private sector,“ we believe that the body that is familiar with these principles, the National Labor Relations Board, should be given jurisdiction over GPO. One additional labor-management consideration ywas raised later in his testimony when Mr; Boarman noted that a provision authorizinga “the proposed . GPO Board of lDirectors to ‘prescribe pggggggrgg for labor-management relations in the Government Printing Office, including procedures 1 B collective bargaining, arbitration, and fact finding'" was “at war“ with the "grant of jurisdiction to an independent tribunal to establish and wenforce labor-management relations procedures.“ The witness gave strong support to the concept of the reconstituted GPO as cns-29 1379077 UPDATE-01/23/80 7 the Government's central authority for controlling public printing. “To permit printing to be done by some entity other than the GPO or a commercial y inting plant under contract to the GPO would be, in our opinion, a waste of the taxpayers’ dollars.“ Later in his testimony, Mr. Boarman developed this point, saying: “GPO, as the centralized source of printing, should be able I to control the flow of subcontracting so that the capabilities are maintained to permit the GPO to meet the legislative printing requirements of Congress." In conclusion, Hr. Boarnan expressed reservation regarding the use of ia negative veto approach in the establishment of the initial body of GPO regulations. Instead, he said, we recommend that, at least for the initial comprehensive regulations, the bill be changed to eliminate the requirement of a negative veto, and instead, require approval of the comprehensive regulations by both the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate. The next witness was Mr. Morris B. schnapper, Editor of Public Affairs Press, who expressed grave concern over the freedom of private commercial publishers to reprint, at considerable profit, government publications of popular. interest without any reimbursement to the Federal treasury. Commenting on this situation, the witness said: ‘Contrary to an impression created by a prior witness at hearings on the proposed Public Printing ifleorganization Act, the Government Printing Office does not exercise.and has not exercised monopoly‘ control over its publications. Such control can only be exercised over private property by private publishers under the monopoly powers granted them by the Copyright Act. Since this law expressly prohibits copyrighting of Vovernnent worxs, all publications of the Government Printing Office automatically enter the public domain when they are issued. In consequence, hundreds . of these publications have been widely and profitably reprinted in recent years. For example, many of the GPO publications dealing with the Watergate scandal and impeachment proceedings against President Nixon were marketed by leading publishing houses. Literally millions of copies were sold, presumably at very substantial profit. Moreover, the GPO often facilitates private publication of its works by providing publishers and others with negatives of typography and illustrations of public domain works, thereby drastically reducing reproduction costs. Such cooperation was authorized by Congress back in the 1890s to encourage the widest possible dissemination of Government information. inr. schnapper was concerned that, in general, the reform bill did vnot eiaddress these matters and that, in xpraticular, “Section 502, was drafted without awareness of the degree to which the present printing law,‘ CRS‘30 IB79077 UPDATE-O1/23/80 long-standing Government property statutes, and the Copyright Act have been flagrantly flounted or, if you will, circumvented by the executive branch “ The witness provided various examples of government-sponsored writing all Government publications which were published or reproduced by private commercial printing firms. The next witness was Hr. Thomas F. McCormick, former Public Printer of the United States (1973-4977) and President of Telegraph Press, a large offset printing firm specializing in periodicals. Mr. McCormick indicated that ... in reading the proposed law I see nothing which really supports the contention that it is going to result in more effective service. I personally see no savings in the bill, and I do not see the possibility of adding gignifigant additional costs to the Federal printing program. As I understand the proposal, the present Joint Committee on Printing is to be replaced by a part~time Board and the present Joint Committee on Printing staff will be replaced with a Board staff. The way such things seem to work in Washington, I feel that just that change alone will result in greater staff costs. It also appears that we have interposed another level of management in the organization itself. The pay rates for certain of the Key positions have been increased substantially, and I don't see any indication of any comparable increase in the duties ‘of responsibilities of either the Public Printer or the Superintendent of Documents. Acknowledging that the Joint Committee on Printing was not necessarily the most effective vehicle for controlling public printing operations, Mr. nccormick did not view the reconstituted GPO as being any more effective. Continuing, he said: A I am particularly concerned about the lack of Congressional oversight of printing procurement and printing equipment in the proposal. There is no real authority in the bill to provide the Board with the ability to regulate the numerous Government agencies which in my judgment already have too many printing plants and are already able to evade the present procurement system to some extent. The proposal does not speak to printing procurement in a straightforward manner. I am afraid that Government agencies left to their own devices will set up their own printing procurement function. Also, it may allow numerous new Executive Agency printing plants. The effect of all this will be unnecessary additional costs within the Government iitself for personnel in the new procurement activities and personnel and equipment in new printing production functions. In addition, numerous Government printing procurement operations will be competing for commercial printing sources. That may cause the cost of procured Federal printing to rise. cRs—31 1379077 UPDATE-O1/23/80 The witness observed that employees of the GPO Board Twill not be subject to the provisions of Title 5 United States Code,“ giving the appearance "that 1 these 1,500 or more jobs could become politicized.“ Hr. Mccormicx also indicated that the bill was unclear as to whetherw the reconstituted GPO “shall be a part of the Executive Branch ort a completely independent agency, independent of both the Legislative and Executive Branches;" c He also wexpressed concern over the clarity and intent of the labor-management relations section of the reform proposal, asking if it applied "just to those employees who presently are covered by the present Keiss Act? Does it apply also to white collar workers? who is bargaining with whom?" He concluded his remarks, saying: In summary, I feel that although there are some problems with the present Title nu, these can be corrected without need for a major reorganization of the Government Printing office; Interposing of a part-time Board of Directors and a large staff is not necessarily the most efficient or effective way to manage the Government Printing office. If the Joint Committee on Printing is done away with, then there ought to be some better means for Congressional oversight of the total Federal printing program. There are cost improvements which can be ‘made in the Federal printing program, the most effective of which would be to cut down the number of titles produced and their quantity. There are many ways this can be accomplished, and I think the most important policy step would be for the Congress, through the Joint Committee on Printing or separate Committees of the House and Senate, to give more authority to the Public Printer and to follow through on his recommendations. The next witness was Mr; Henry Ba Freedman, Research Associate with the program of Policy Studies in Science and Technology at The George Washington - University; Mr. Freedman*s interest in the reform legislation derived from his current research exploring "the implications of those technologies which couple electronic information processing capabilities to printed, graphics a capabilities and to anticipate and clarify the public— policy tissues that might arise from the continued development of these technologiesafi In his opening remarks, the witness observed: As the Congress considers the reorganization of public iprinting, it is important to recognize the technological trends that are sweeping us along in order that legislation enacted today will be appropriate tomorrow. It is also necessary to look carefully at the structures and * institutions which are a part of public printing, distribution of documents, policy guidance, and evaluation to insure that these four functions are clearly defined and organized to achieve the most efficient system of printing for the cns-32 IB7 9077 UPDATE—0 1/23/so government, the most efficient distribution and widespread access to government documents, the most flexible policy framework and policies for a responsiveness to problems and new technological opportunities, and an ability to evaluate policies and procedures. we are not here to take a position on H.R. M572 and S. 1u36. We are here to point out a few aspects of the broader A context in which public printing and dissemination of information are a part. The witness then proceeded to develop two themes: “... technological change has and will continue to create issues surrounding the production and distribution of public documents" and “... the Congress needs to establish an adaptive administrative procedure to be able to cope with these issues as they arise.“. The implications drawn by the witness from his presentation and bearing upon governmental structure were twofold: Primarily, the appropriate role of centralized printing operations will continually be questioned. This is not to say that there will be no role, but that the efficient, economical, and responsive division of responsibility between the GPO and alternative means of production and distribution of public documents will be exceedingly difficult to determine. And,‘in¢addition: ... the current organization of the Government Printing Office combines four responsibilities [ -~ production, distribution, assessment, and evaluation ac] that will become ever more incompatible as the technology continues to develop. At the same time, these four responsibilities are connected and must be provided for by coordinated, yet independent, administrative structures. By this we mean that no one of - the four can function if it is subordinated to any of the other three. The balancing of these separate responsibilities would need to be arbitrated by a board or commission. The Congress would have the ultimate oversight authority to review the actions of the board. The witness proceeded to discuss each of the four areas of responsibility which must be addressed by a Government printing organization. He concluded, saying: If Government policy is to be flexible, adaptive, yet held within appropriate check, the four areas of responsibility need to have administrative independence and adequate support- This is not a proliferation of Government functions nor an inefficient arrangement since the costs of failing to adapt or to make full use of public documents would represent an immeasurable waste of public funds and foregon opportunities. cns—33 IB79077 wUPDATE~01/23/80 The final witness of the day was Hr. Shawn P. Kelly who, as an employee of Ralph Nader's Public Interest Research Group, “conducted a study of the I vernment Printing Office and the larger Federal public information system." A report resulting from this research was released on July 10 of this year. In coming before the House-Senate panels considering the Public Printing Reorganization Act, Mr. Kelly said: “I hope I will be able to provide the outsider's perspective: the viewpoint of a citizen who is interested primarily in the quality, timeliness, and cost of Government publications." The witness regarded the relocation of the Government Printing Office within the executive branch as a "judicious" decision. Mr. Kelly thought the move was justified both in terms of the volume of printing GPO performs for the departments and agencies and in terms of producing better products for this clientele. “The hundreds of printers, compositors, and editors in the Executive departments have been increasingly frustrated in their attempts to make necessary changes.” As a result of the GPO relocation, "this longéestranged majority will, one hopes, have a more receptive ear with top printing officials." I Describing the creation of the GPO Board of Directors as I“a welcome 'improvement,“ Mr. Kelly qualified his endorsement by calling the innovation "a very limited one" which "will do little to serve better the information needs of the American people." He added: “Without a concurrent improvement in public service, this: particular reform will ultimately. go unnoticed, throughout the country.“ Similarly, he praised the upgrading of the role of the csuperintendent of T ouments, calling the reform "laudable" but added that “Congress should give basic legislative guidance and purpose." In this regard, the witness posed this central question for the hearing panel: will GPO actively promote and distribute documents to the public as if it cared that these publications were read? Or will SupDocs continue to issue documents and catalogues without enthusiasm, and without regard to the social good the information in these publications could bring if widely read? After discussing the deficiencies of the current operations of the Superintendent of Documents and, by contrast, praising the activities of the Consumer Information Center (CIC) in the General Services Administration, Mr. Kelly recommended that the final form of the Public Printing Reorganization Act :a. should establish a much larger and comprehensive Superintendent of Documents division than now exists or is planned.% I recommend that the committee reconstitute SupDocs as the Public Information Agency (PIA) within GPO, which would be the single distributor of public documents: ‘Citizens are confused by the present system in which the different departments and agencies, as well as such special groups as CIC and NTIS [National Technical Information Service], all promote their own publications: Economies of scale and efficient management techniques, if *nothing else, should encourage this move, Furthermore, the PIA should be given a clear mandate to cns-an 11379077 UPDATE—O 1/23/ao i give discounts to public libraries, schools, and not-for-profit ! organizations. PIA should embark on a campaign to make ordinary citizens aware of the vast amount of Government information available to them. CIC and NTIS are just two examples of successful programs that identify particular groups for selective advertising and promotion. They should serve as models for the PIA division. Redrafted refo;m_g;;l During August, the Public Printing Reorganization Act was redrafted and a new version of the legislation was introduced in the House on Sept. 27, 1979, as H.R. suzu, the National Publications Act of 1979. According to a memorandum offered by Chairman Thompson of the Committee on House Administration in discussing the new bill on the House floor, the following changes were made in the initial reform measure: 1. The legislation was retitled the National Publications Act to _indicate "a whole lot more than ‘printing’ is involved“; 2. The term "distribution" was defined in the proposal and "includes only sales programs which lack specific statutory authorization“: 3. The term “Government entity“ was defined to .indicate "who is eligible to designate depository libraries...and who is required to designa information resources managers“; 4. The term "public document“ was redefined to refer “to those items reproduced by a governmental entity for official use“; 5; The name of the Government Printing Office was changed to tthe National Publications Agency in conconance with the change in the title of the legislation; - 6. The National Publications Agency, as an independent agency in the A executive branch, “will be subject to all existing statutes, regulations and other administrative orders which affect the executive branch offices“; 7. The "Board of Directors" of the National Publications Agency “is redesignated the "Commission" and should serve to indicate the Agency is a A regulatory and service body, not a Government corporation; 8. A new subsection establishes the power of the Agency to “utilize A the private sector for printing or distribution services“; _ 9; The power of congressional committees lto veto proposed Agency regulations was extended to the President; cns-35 A 11379077 UPDATE-O1/23/80 10. A congressional veto or a presidential veto may be exercised With regard to Agency regulations either in whole or in part; 11; The staff of the Commission within the, National Publications Agency was limited statutorily at not to exceed 15 in number; 12; Labor-management relations were spelled out in detail in new language which largely retains the present system; A 13. Procurement of property and services by the Agency, with a few special circumstances of exception, are in accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949; w 14. The requirement that the logo “Produced at Government Expense" appear on all materials printed by the Government was altered so that it will ’appear only on matter which is not otherwise readily identifiable as a Government publication; 15. “Publications which are given away free to the public must make a disclosure of the issuing Government entity, the Appropriations Act providing the funds, and the cost of the document“; and ' 16. "All of the regulations and waivers of regulations of the Joint Committee on Printing will expire one year after the effective date of the ‘ACt¢” According to Chairman Thompson: "This new version will serve as the vehicle for our committee mark-up sessions.“’ A section-by—section lanalysis of the redrafted reform bill was offered at the time of its introduction (see Congressional Record, v. 125, Sept; 27, 1979: H86fl7-H8652). §22§e_hea£in9§ On Nov; 14, 1979, the Printing Subcommittee of the Committee on House Administration held an additional day of hearings on H.R. 542a, the National Publications Act. In opening the proceeding, Chairman Hawkins said: ...we are anxious to hear from all concerned parties and would welcome specific amendments to improve the bill. Following completion of the public hearings I propose--without objection--to hold the record open for a period of time, perhaps a couple of weeks, in order that formal communications may be made a part of the official record. Today?s hearings are further witness to the committee's desire to gather all viewpoints on the legislation. Although no further hearings on the revised legislation were originally anticipated, Mr. Dickinson, the distinguished ranking minority member of the committee, suggested that a public hearing might solicit valuable information from CRS-36 11379077 UPDATE-01/23/8L0 a number of executive branch agencies. To this request, the sponsors readily agreed. The witnesses today represent four of the five highest priority government organizations suggested by Mr. Dickinson. It is my understanding that the witnesses will address specific provisions of the Dill from their individual agency perspectives and that their comments do not reflect the overall position of the current Administration. We are pleased ta ha!e_the§9 distinguished witnesses here today. The first witness, Dr. James E. O'Neill, Acting Archivist of the United States, indicated that H.R. 5424 was an improvement over H.B. 4572 but, he said, “we still have problems with some of the language and what it would accomplish.“ A basic concern, which I am sure we share with other agencies, is the strong policycmaking and regulatory authorities given an independent Commission in this bill. The Congress and the Executive branch, it seems to us, would benefit more from a service—oriented printing establishment than from one which also is deeply involved in rule-making. Information and printing resources can be--and should be-managed by program managers with missions to accomplish-just as they manage other resources to the same ends. It does not seem necessary, or appropriate, to have an independent Commission without ‘the same missions make the policies in this one field. The Acting Archivist then indicated that, if the National Publications Commission were to be granted policymaking and regulatory authority, the review procedures specified in the legislation "should be significantly strengthened.“ Dr. 0‘Neill detailed how this strengthening might be accomplished, explained that the definition of “public document“ used in the bill “should be less inclusive,“ and expressed concern that the name of the new printing and publication establishment “could cause serious confusion.“. It would be easy to mix up the name of the new Commission with the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. The latter has existed for more than 45 years and is well Known to the academic community, librarians, and many segments of the public. we suggest that a different name be sought for the National Publications Commission. Dr. O'Neill next turned to aspects of the legislation of direct concern to the National Archives and Records Service saying, first, that he hoped he was interpreting the bill's definition of ‘distribution as excluding public »documents sales programs established by law from its provisions. If this view was correct, both the publications distribution program of the Natior 1 Archives Trust Fund Board and the centralized distribution services of t_e National Audiovisual Center would be outside of the coverage of the proposal. However, if this interpretation was not correct, the witness offered ivarious arguments strongly opposing the bill's intent on this point. Next, the Acting Archivist raised questions about “requiring NPA to CR3--37 1:37 9077 UPDATE--O 1/23/80 maintain its own collection of public documents" in seeming duplication of a well-established function vested in the National Archives. He noted that ' he designation of the National Archives Library as a depository library was inappropriate and inadequate because the National Archives and Records Service is a ‘statutory depository';“ he observed, however, that, while H.R. 5424 does not treat NARS as a depository library, it is also devoid, "of the special statutory provisions which now exist in Title 44“ regarding its depository status. Concern also was expressed "about the budgetary impact of providing a broad array of public documents to depository libraries." Finally, with regard to records management matters and paperwork control, Dr: O'Neill urged that, in meeting its responsibilities to “fix standards for paper and other materials used in the production of public documents," NPA "should be required to do this in conjunction with NARS." He also observed: “If Chapter 11, Information Resources Management, of H.R. 5424 is intended as a first step toward a broad information resource management program, we are of the opinion that a bill revising the printing statutes and establishing a new agency, but which makes only passing references to information resources management, is not the proper mechanism to give this importanti topic the ‘hearing it deserves," Appearing on behalf of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Acting Associate Administrator Edwin C. Kilgore of the Office of uanagement Operations offered testimony indicating why “NASA could not endorse enactment of H43. 5a2u." Noting that the Administration's basic charter, the National Aeronautics and Space Act, calls for “the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities, and ‘the: results *'ereof,“ the witness said: A We have taken this charge seriously and have developed an effective and viable program to assure that we are responsive to the users in the aerospace industry, Federal and State agencies, and the general public:‘ Among the most effective technology transfer mediums are our publications such as our research reports and technology utilization journals: These are published and disseminated by NASA directly to thousands of users in selected technology areas: with regard to the National Publication Act, Hr. Kilgore stated: We are concerned that the formation of the National Publications Agency would create an unneeded publication and distribution barrier between the technology user and NASA. We are also concerned that, at best, this would interfere with out ability to provide rapid and effective dissemination of technology. The witness concluded, saying: A “If them National Publications Agency assumes NASA's role, it could result in added expense, be less efficient and 5 ‘ibit the rapid transfer of technology. A, g The third witness, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense David 0: Cooke, submitted detailed comments on the proposed reform legislation and offered summary remarks before the Subcommittee. Mr. Cooke began his testimony by saying: . I i CBS-38% IB7 9077 UPDATE-O 1/23/ako i 1 our principal concern is to assure that there is no degradation of printing service support to Department of Defense components. In this regard we stress the need for a degree of autonomy to enable an adequate and continuing mobilization base. Turning his attention to more detailed considerations, the witness indicated “the definition of ‘public document‘ dis still considered overly pbroad" and urged a distinction between "public" information and "government" information. Later in his testimony Mr. Cooke developed this point, saying: The definition of ‘public document“ continues to overemphasize public accessibility and ignores basic logistic and economic considerations. The sheer nature and volume of defense-related information, in the variety of formats included in the definition, could result in a significant burden based on production, distribution, and overhead costs involved in cataloging and indexing. H.R. 542% still fails to consider that the primary purpose of information used within the Department of Defense is to assist, enhance, or expedite the overall agency mission. Information is printed or distributed internally as a necessary tool of management with no preconceived intent to distribute or sell that material outside the agency itself, except in those instances where program objectives or directives so ‘require. The bill implies in part that information is an end product for public dissemination rather than a service and support function or tool of administration, training, or management; The Department of Defense objects not to the public access of its information, but rather to the emphasis on accessibility as an end in itself. Hr. Cooke indicated that aspects of the operations of the National Publications Agency would constitute intrusions into line management functions. In this regard, he expressed the view that "agency operational autonomy must be recognized as necessary to basic mission satisfaction, especially within the Department of Defense." This same consideration was addressed later in his testimony when he said: i Operational necessity, security classification, and mobilization strongly support a ggntinging requirement for in-house production and distribution capability. we feel that printing programs within the Department of Defense fare essential to successful fulfillment of national tsecurity missions and that the Department should only have to justify those programs as it does other multi-million dollar programs through the budgetary authorization and p appropriation process. Overall agency programs should , be initially delineated and justified with continued operation authorized until such time as circumstances and economics indicate otherwise. ion-going oversight could be accomplished through a system of commission program review, fiscal accountability and analysis, and overall CR5;-39 IB7 9077 upnamn-o 1/23/so mission requirements. Arguing that the reform legislation "emphasizes enforcement rather. than management," Mr. Cooke expressed departmental objection ...to the requirement to establish an information manager at a specific agency level with no corresponsing provision for delegation in the bill itself. Agency heads should be allowed to retain their inherent authority to manage their resources, including personnel and organizational , structure. The witness concluded saying "we are still opposed to enactment of the legislation“ and recommended "that legislation be drafted which would place, responsibility for organizing and managing the printing and distribution of executive branch information in the executive branch subject to the same legal policy and fiscal controls that pertain to other executive branch resources and programs.“ _ The final witness of the day was Arch 5. Ramsay, Associate Director for Staffing Services, Office of Personnel Management. Noting that the reform bill would continue most Government Printing Office employees under the general Federal personnel system, he observed that “some categories of employees would be excepted, and we feel these exceptions should. be reconsidered.“ The policy and management direction of the National ‘Publications Agency would be controlled by the National Publications Commission. Under the bill, the Chairman of the Commission would be authorized to appoint and fix the pay of staff personnel for his office and for the Commission without regard to civil service laws concerning appointment, classification, and compensation. ' We see no reason for exempting these positions by statute. There is ample flexibility under title 5 to permit the Commission to meet its hiring needs and to make exceptions if necessary. Consistent with the fundamental merit system principle of equal pay for equal work, we believe Commission staff ought to be subject to the same classification and pay system which applies to employees in the executive branch generally. Mr Ramsay also took exception to the pay—setting provisions of the reform bill exempting certain employees from the General schedule.‘ "We believe that if Congress wishes to integrate the Nationali Publications Agency into the executive branch, it should bring all of the white-collar positions of the Agency and the Commission under the General Schedule.“ As for employees in the printing trade who are not currently paid from wage rate schedules established lunder the Federal Wage System *but are r mpensated through a negotiated pay arrangement, OPH urged "that language s-milar to section 70a of the Civil Service Reform Act, which continues in effect existing collective bargaining agreements, be added to H.R. su2u.» The witness expressed concern over various aspects of the. legislationts labor-management provisions. He recommended “that the wbill be amended to i CRS—40 1379077 UPDATE-01/23/HO place the Agency's labor-management relations program under the coverage of chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, or, at a minimum, that simil language be added to this bill;“ that an express ban on the union shop be added to the proposal; and that "the bill should draw. some distinctions between supervisors and nonmanagerial employees such as those contained in title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978;" and, with the bill's requirement that an Information Resources Manager report directly to the head of the individual department or agency, that “it is inappropriate to require by statute that an agency head directly supervise a function that is, in most cases, relatively minor in comparison with agency policy and program functions." In addition, some concern was expressed over the prospect of the National Publications Agency's labor-management program not being subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. A markup on H.R. 5424 by the Committee on House Administration began on Jan. 22, 1980. ‘ L§§-§L§$IQ! H.R. 4572 (Thompson et al.)/S. 1436 (Pell) Public Printing Reorganization Act of 1979. Amends Title 44, U554 Code, by repealing chapters 13, 17, and 19 in their entirety and substituting new provisions in chapters.1 through 11 changing the organizational structure and status of the Government Printing Office; altering the administration and delivery of printing services to the public, the executive branch and the. Congress, including the abolition of the Joint Committee on Printin altering the administration and distribution of Government documents, to tn; public,‘ the executive branch, and the Congress; .and establishing new arrangements with regard to information resources management. House bill ~introduced June 21, 1979; referred to Committee on House Administration. Senate proposal offered June 27, 1979; referred to Committee on Rules and Administration. Joint hearings on the measures began July 10, 1979. Vacated for H.R. 5424 in the House. A H-R. 5424 (Thompson et al.) ‘ A National Publications Act of 1979. Supercedes H.R. 4572 and amends Title 44, 0.3. Code, by repealing chapters 13, 17, and 19 in their entirety and substituting new provisions in chapters 1 through 11 changing the organizational structure and status of the Government Printing office, which is renamed the National Publications Agency; altering the administration and delivery of printing services to the public, the executive branch, and the Congress, including vthe abolition of the Joint Committee on Printing; altering the administration and distribution of Government documents to the public, the executive branch, and the Congress;i andv establishing new arrangements with regard to information resources management. Introduced Sept. 27, 1979; referred to Committee on House Administration; hearings held by Subcommittee on Printing Nov. 14, 1979; mark-up by full committee began Jan. 22, 1980. HEARINGS 0.5. lcongress. House. Committee on House Administration [and],Senate. Committee on Rules and Administration. Public Printing Reorganization Act of 1979. Joint hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. July 10, 19, 24, 26, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. cns-tn 9 1379077 upnu.-3-0 1/23/ao U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on Printing. Analysis and evaluation of selected Government Printing Office operations ‘ [prepared by] Coopers and Lybrand, an independent consulting firm, Washington, D.C. Washington, 1979. 288 p. At head of title: Committee print. ---— Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Revision of Title nu. Federal Government printing and publishing: policy issues. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 120 p. At head of title: Committee print. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. Lack of accountability in government public information and publishing programs. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 792 p. At head of title: 96th Congress, 1st session. Committee print. QEEQEQLOGY 01’ EV§.1!.‘12§ 09/27/79 -- A redrafted version of the Public Printing Reorganization Act was introduced in the House as H.R. SQZH, the National Publications Act, and, according to the primary sponsor, “will serve as the vehicle for our committee markup sessions." 07/10/79 --Technical amendments to H.R. 4572,—to be offered’ during committee mark-up of the bill, were announced on the House floor by Representative Thompson, Chairman of the Committee on House Administration. - Joint hearings on H.R. 4572 and S. 1436 began before ithe Subcommittee on Printing of the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. 06/21/79 —-H.R. 4572, the Public Printing Reorganization Act of 7 1979, was introduced by Representative Frank Thompson for himself and other co—sponsors. 06/09/79 ——-A draft version of the Public Printing Reorganization . Act of 1979 was printed and circulated for comment within Congress. 05/23/79 - The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Revision of Title 44 submitted its final report to the Joint Committee on Printing. A 11/08/78 +- The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Revision of Title nu, 9 created by the Joint Committee on Printing, began a series of public hearings and deliberations on matters pertaining to the reform of the printing chapters of title 44, U.S. Code. cns-42 IB7 90772 UPDATE‘.-l-p01/23/80 10/31/78 ~ Coopers and Lybrand, an independent consulting firm, y completed its study of the operations and management of Government Printing office. The study had been prepared under contract for the Joint Committee on Printing. .1291.12Q!AL..§.§§;13B.i.§!Q§..50UB§§.§, Kelly, Shawn P. The Peoplefis printer: A report on the Government Printing Office. Washington, Public interest research group, 1979. 65 p. Mccormick, Thomas F. The Government Printing Office; a discussion of selected activities, problems, and future concerns. Government publications review, v.u, no. 2, 119-126. 1 Thompson, Frank. Introductory remarks and section-by-section analysis of the National Publications Act of 1979 (H.B. 542a). Congressinal record, v. 125, Sept. 27, 1979: H8646—H8652. U.S. General Accounting Office. Agency printing and duplicating operations need management improvements, multiagency; report to the Joint Committee on Printing by the Comptroller General of the United States. [Washington] 197a. (B-11u829, Nov. 1, 1974) 2a p. 1 ----- Government printing operation improvements since 197%, 9 Government Printing Office and other Federal agencies: report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. [Washington] 1977. (LCD-77-408, Feb. 22, 1977) 24 p. --—- Government Printing Office production and management controls-improvement opportunities; report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United states. [Washington] 1977. (LCD—77-410, nay H, 1977) 29 p. ---~ Need to improve management and operations of regional printing procurement offices. Government Printing Office. Report to the Joint Committee on Printing. [Washington] 1974. (B-11u829, Feb. 20, 1974) 20 p. -~-— Substantial improvements needed in the Government Printing ’ Officeis services to Federal departments and agencies; report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. ][Washington] 1975. (LCD-75-437, Dec. 29, 1975) 23 p. U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Title nu, United States Code - public printing and documents: a brief historical overview [by] Harold C. Relyea. Washington, 1979. 66 p. CR5 Report 79-36 GOV Warner, Frank. Government Printing Office: a very odd publishing tw_i_ihQn§§aimflation, v. 220, Har. 22, 1975:339-340. LE 705* g WAE; H E M T'i:iB U'E\3i\/§E5%&‘E§E“s"”$" 5 $31‘. LOUIE; — fix".-=11)‘-. i I . r.nr_ MU Libraries University of Missouri——Columbia Digitization Information for Congressional Research Service Digitization Project Local identifier CRSIB Source information Format Book Content type Text Notes Stamped with property stamp for Washington University including deaccession stamp Some have labels on front page Some have black out markings on front page SuDoc numbers handwritten on front page Some items have very light print Some front pages have colored backgrounds Items not added to University of Missouri collection Capture information Date captured 20l7 April Scanner manufacturer Ricoh Scanner model MP C4503 Scanning system software Optical resolution 600 dpi Color settings grayscale File types tiff Derivatives — Access copy Compression Group 4 Editing software Resolution 600 dpi Color bitonal File types tiff Notes