-Free Public Access Through a Federal Depository Library Gateway (Using the Web to link users directly to a GPO Access gateway for free public access) -Free Public Access On Site at a Federal Depository Library (Using the Web to identify depository libraries that offer on site access)

-Other GPO Access Locator Services (Using the Web to search the Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications, identify a publication and then find a depository library that selects it; searching an index of government Web sites for documents that can be downloaded; links to other agency Web sites, such as the Consumer Information Center, National Cancer Institute, Department of Energy) -GPO Access On-Demand Services (Using the Web for remote access to files from selected CD-ROM titles distributed through the Federal Depository Library Program) -Identification of U.S. Government (GPO) Bookstores (Using the Web to locate a bookstore and display the address, phone number and a local map) -Identification of Publications for Sale by GPO (Using the Web to obtain a Subject Bibliography or review the current GPO Subscriptions Catalog)

Storage Facility.-A development plan for the storage facility has been drafted. A job description has been developed for the manager of the facility and is awaiting classification.

On-Demand Services.-A proposal has been sent to the Joint Committee on Printing seeking authorization for a study of the electronic capabilities and requirements of Federal Depository Libraries, so that the implementation of the electronic on-demand services and the storage facility will be appropriate to their capabilities and needs.

Cost Recovery.-As noted above, the databases online via GPO Access are provided without charge to Federal Depository Libraries who in turn provide free public access. The cost of dissemination to the Federal Depository Libraries is funded by the GPO Salaries and Expenses appropriation. All other users purchase these services from GPO at cost. At present approximately three-quarters of the revenue for the online databases comes from the S&E appropriation and the balance from sales. The revenue is adequate to cover the costs of dissemination. Costs and revenue are being monitored carefully, so that rates can be adjusted as needed to ensure full cost recovery.

SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

Question. Your request for Superintendent of Documents Salaries and Expenses is $30.3 million, a decrease of $1.9 million.

For the benefit of members of the subcommittee, would you describe the major elements of the Superintendent of Documents Program?

What accounts for this reduction?

Answer. The major elements of the Superintendent of Documents Programs funded by the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation are as follows:

Cataloging and indexing.-The Office of the Superintendent of Documents is charged with preparing catalogs and indexes of all publications issued by the Federal Government. The principal publication is the "Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications." The amount requested is $3,254,000.

Bylaw Distribution for other Government agencies and Members of Congress.—The Office of the Superintendent of Documents maintains mailing lists and mails, at the request of Government agencies and Members of Congress, certain publications specified by public law. The amount requested is $836,000.

Depository library distribution.-As required, Government publications are supplied to libraries which are designated as depositories for Government publications including cost-effective methods of electronic dissemination to depository libraries such as CD-ROMS, and on-demand delivery of full text or image files. The amount requested for these functions is $25,618,000.

İnternational Exchange Program.-The Office of the Superintendent of Documents distributes Government publications to foreign governments which agree, as indicated by the Library of Congress, to send to the United States similar publications of their governments for delivery to the Library of Congress. The amount requested is $599,000.

Due to the anticipated reduction in paper products and the savings already resulting from electronic information delivery, the requested appropriation for fiscal year 1996 is $1.9 million less than the appropriation received in fiscal year 1995.

SECTION 207/GPO ROLE

Question. Mr. DiMario, last year you told us that a decline in the volume of government printing jobs was a major factor in GPO's financial difficulties. This decline is due, you indicated, in significant part to the use of high speed duplicators and other electronic publishing systems in the executive branch. The Defense Printing Services is the most notable example. In response to this issue, the conference agreement on the fiscal year 1995 bill included modifications to Section 207 aimed at closing the duplicating and other loopholes that permit executive branch agencies to avoid going through GPO for their printing and publishing needs. Subsequently, the Administration announced its intention to ignore those changes as an infringement on its prerogatives and a violation of interbranch comity.

Would you bring us up to date on the status of this set of issues?

Is declining volume still a serious problem and if so, what are you doing to counter it?

Is the basic system codified in title 44 for organizing the production, procurement, and dissemination of government information through the GPO still sound today? What changes need to be made to improve it?

Answer. Following the Administration's response to the modification to section 207 enacted in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995, discussions between OMB and congressional officials resulted in an agreement to maintain the status quo regarding printing and duplicating arrangements pending the development of a legislative approach to reforming Federal printing. This agreement, which was issued on September 19, 1994, by OMB Director Alice Rivlin, specifically pledged to cooperate with the modified section 207 (see attachment).

MEMORANDUM FROM THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

FROM: Alice M. Rivlin, Acting Director

SEPTEMBER 19, 1994.

SUBJECT: Procurement of Printing and Duplicating through the Government Printing Office

Background

Information technology is changing the way words and images are put on paper, blurring traditional notions of printing and duplicating. As a result, the framework of laws governing those aspects of government publishing has become outdated.

In his July 22, 1994, statement accompanying the Fiscal Year 1995 Legislative Appropriations Act, the President expressed his eagerness and resolve to accomplish a comprehensive reform of Federal printing. The leadership of the Congressional committees of jurisdiction has agreed to work with the Administration to produce a legislative approach to solving this problem next year. Accordingly, we have agreed to maintain the status quo regarding present printing and duplicating arrangements during fiscal year 1995 to allow this initiative to go forward.

We have agreed that legislative reform of government printing must strive to achieve three goals. First, it should improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of government printing and duplicating by maximizing the use of private sector printing and duplicating capability through open competitive procedures. Second, it should limit Government-owned printing and duplicating resources to only those necessary to maintain a minimum core capacity. Finally, it should enhance public access to government information by improving the information dissemination practices of the Federal government. I am certain you share these goals. We look forward to consulting with you as this legislative program is formulated.

Policy

Accordingly, as a matter of Administration policy, Executive departments and agencies are to carry out their printing and duplicating activities during fiscal year 1995 in accordance with the following:

-The procurement of printing and duplicating services from private sector sources shall continue to be the preferred method of fulfilling agency printing and duplicating requirements.

-All procurement of printing and duplicating from private sector sources shall be through the Government Printing Office, except for individual printing or duplicating orders costing not more than $1,000, if such orders are not of a continuing or repetitive nature and cannot be provided more economically through the Government Printing Office.

-Existing agency in-house printing and duplicating operations and agency crossservicing arrangements (e.g., GSA's provision of duplicating services to other agencies in field locations) may continue to operate normally.

-Agency printing and high speed duplicating capacity shall not be expanded. This is not intended to affect the ordinary maintenance and replacement of existing equipment capacity.

-Existing agency plans to downsize internal printing and duplicating capacity shall continue to be carried out.

-Agencies should ensure that all government publications, as defined in 44 U.S.C. Part 19, are made available to the depository library program through the Superintendent of Documents.

I must emphasize that agency compliance with these policies, and cooperation with Congressional oversight, is essential to the ultimate success of a comprehensive legislative initiative to reform government printing.

The modified section 207 has not stemmed the decline in volume handled by GPO, however. We are aware of instances of noncompliance with section 207. Declining volume is also due to other factors, such as agency budget reductions in printing and publishing and continuing conversion to electronic dissemination, that cannot be affected by section 207.

In response to declining volume, we are continuing to make efforts to attract business to GPO based on the broad range of services we provide, and we have had a number of successes with these efforts, particularly in the area of CD-ROM technology. We are also offering new kinds of services, such as our on-line GPO access service, which recently was successful in attracting GAO to use it for disseminating GAO reports. In addition to trying to attract business, we are cutting costs to equalize our cost base with reduced workload levels.

The basic system codified in Title 44 for organizing the production, procurement, and dissemination of Government information is still sound. It is a system that takes maximum advantage of private sector printing resources while permitting the maintenance of a much smaller in-plant capability to handle non-procurable work. It also is a system that links production with distribution, ensuring that the most comprehensive body of publications is made available for public distribution. In these respects, the system is still sound. However, adjustments have to be made for the effective utilization of new technology and to ensure that the management of GPO is flexible enough to respond effectively to changing technological conditions and changing conditions in the Government printing arena.

Question. You are requesting a $15.4 million appropriation to the revolving fund for capital improvements.

Does this mean that your charges for printing services do not include an allowance to cover depreciation?

Is this request a reflection of the broader financial problem due to declining volume?

Answer. The $15.4 million is requested to cover renovation of air conditioning, electrical, and elevator systems in GPO's buildings.

GPO printing and binding rates have not been increased since April 1990. The results have been financial losses for the past four years of operation. The initial printing and binding rates did included an amount for depreciation. However, with the current financial circumstances one could say that GPO is not recovering the depreciation apportionment.

Our intent in seeking funding through appropriations to cover the cost of the renovation of air conditioning, electrical, and elevator systems in GPO's buildings is to provide funding for capital expenditures necessary to meet environmental and safety concerns without the necessity to increase future printing and binding rates to finance these issues.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator MACK. That will conclude today's hearing.

Mr. DIMARIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Whereupon, at 4:38 p.m., Monday, May 22, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, May 26.]

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 1996

FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1995

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 9:33 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Connie Mack (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Mack and Bennett.

CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES

STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH, ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CONNIE MACK

Senator MACK. We will call the hearing to order.

And I would like to welcome Senator Hatch, who is here to discuss the budget request of the Office of Technology Assessment. This is the fourth and last hearing of the Legislative Branch Appropriation Subcommittee, which is considering the fiscal 1996 legislative branch appropriations bill, which funds the operations of Congress.

As I have mentioned in each previous hearing, this committee is about the business of reducing the size and cost to the taxpayer of the legislative branch of Government.

Shortly after the November election, the Republican conference adopted a resolution calling for a $200 million reduction in the $2.4 billion legislative branch appropriation, and to do so without compromising the legislative and oversight missions of the Congress.

Yesterday, the Senate adopted a budget resolution which provides a dramatic and necessary plan for achieving a balanced budget within the next 7 years, the part of the budget resolution which addresses the legislative branch affirms the $200 million reduction, the 25-percent reduction in the General Accounting Office, and the elimination of the Office of Technology Assessment, our focus for today's hearing.

Of all the tough decisions this subcommittee is committed to making, those we will discuss in today's hearings will be the most difficult. As with many Federal programs, there are good reasons for maintaining or even increasing the funding for some of Congress' support agencies.

But our fiscal situation and the job before us is clear. We must make reductions and prioritize our needs and resources. Difficult decisions, yes.

But it is imperative that Congress demonstrate leadership by not only making responsible reductions, but also finding creative solutions to the delivery of core services.

I look forward to hearing from both my colleagues and other witnesses on these issues.

So, Senator Hatch, we will move along. I welcome you to the hearing, and I know of your commitment to the Office of Technology Assessment and look forward to your comments.

COMMENTS OF SENATOR HATCH

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Senator Mack. I really appreciate you inviting me here today.

And as always, you have been very accommodating, and I personally appreciate the leadership that you are providing in so many areas, but especially this.

I have been in this chair on similar occasions in the past. And although I appreciated and expected the level of scrutiny that your subcommittee has annually exercised regarding the Office of Technology and Assessment, I recognize that this year presents particular problems with which you have to deal in regard to our budget and the new standard by which all legislative branch agencies will be assessed for budget considerations.

I am also aware of the task this subcommittee faces in making its share of the budget reductions, especially in light of the recent budget resolution we just passed last night. Believe me, I know that you have very tough choices to make.

In this new era, though, of reducing expenditure and belt tightening, I do not want the Congress to cut off its nose to spite its face.

We have to ask ourselves: What do we gain by eliminating an agency with a very modest budget if by so doing we remove our ability to make informed decisions that could save even more

money.

IMPACT OF ELIMINATING OTA

OTA has been the source of much of that information that has helped us to save money through the years. So it is important that we undertake a below-the-surface analysis of what impact eliminating OTA will have on the Congress over the long term.

I am sure the members of this subcommittee will agree that we cannot make judgments about the efficacy of various technologies in a vacuum.

Few of us in the Senate are experts or are sufficiently expert in science engineering, computer science, and other areas to know the aggregate effects of public policy decisions on technology or, conversely, the effects of technology on public policy.

In many cases, there are powerful economic repercussions in both fiscal and competitive terms. So when we consider OTA's elimination, I think we have to think carefully about whether we are prepared and able to work effectively and to make the decisions