9

Questions Submitted by Senator Ford

Question 1: One problem we've been having with Title 44 and the executive branch is enforcement.

Do we know how many agencies are not going through GPO for their printing?

Do we know how much information is not getting to the Federal depositories?

Response: We estimate that the value of Federal printing currently bypassing GPO is approximately $491 million; some of this may be bypassing us legitimately, but much of it is printing that can and ought to be procured through GPO at a greatly reduced cost to the taxpayer.

With respect to fugitive documents, we estimate that more than 50 percent of all tangible Government information products are not being made available to the FDLP. Of these, we estimate that there are about 55,000 scientific and technical documents and reports which are neither printed through GPO nor furnished by the issuing agencies to the FDLP as required by law. The issuing agencies do, however, provide either a printed copy or an electronic image file of each of these documents to the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) of the Department of Commerce.

In addition, there is an unknown number of fugitives which are primarily general, public interest materials produced by agencies other than through GPO. It is virtually impossible to estimate the total number of these titles, but they may well number in the thousands and include such publications as decisions of the Federal district courts and courts of appeals, Federal Election Commission financial disclosure statements, and reports produced by the Library of Congress's Congressional Research Service.

Question 2: In your statement you maintain that the transfer of GPO to the executive branch is not necessary or desirable, as it might jeopardize cost-effectiveness and efficiency. You advocate transferring the authority of the JCP to the Public Printer to solve any constitutional problems with Title 44. We have a responsibility to make sure that information is available to the public that paid for it with their tax dollars. I want to make sure we are not putting the cart before the horse by doing away with the JCP before we know how any new arrangement will work.

If we take this approach, what risks do we run that Government information will not get to the public?

Response: As noted in my prepared statement, I seriously doubt whether GPO can be reconstituted in the executive branch with sufficient protections to prevent its control by OIRA in the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is an agency which has not always had a strong record of commitment to comprehensive and equitable public access to taxpayer-supported information and to the cost-effective production and procurement of Government information

10

products. Placing GPO in a position under the control of OIRA may place effective and equitable public access to Government information at risk.

As to the future of the JCP, I have previously said that JCP authority over certain printing and information dissemination matters has been very useful to GPO, particularly in the area of resolving issues between the Senate and the House of Representatives on questions of congressional format, style, and printing priorities and especially during extremely busy periods such as sine die sessions. Appropriate legislative oversight over printing and information dissemination issues may be more effectively accomplished through a joint body, such as a Joint Committee on Information Management, as proposed in the House report of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress in the 103rd Congress. While such a body should not exercise direct control over GPO's operations, its oversight capabilities would continue to be a valuable asset to Government information policy.

Question 3: It is believed that the authority of Congress over certain aspects of executive branch printing violates the separation of powers under the Constitution.

Will Congress inherit a similar separation of powers problem if it were to print information using the Public Printer operating under the executive branch?

Response: Yes, I think that would happen. There would be a real question as to whether Congress would continue to rely on the executive branch for the production of information essential to the legislative process. In late 1993, a proposal was introduced in the House of Representatives to transfer GPO to the executive branch (H.R. 3400), but it was amended to retain GPO in the legislative branch before it was brought to the floor. Questions were raised at that time about relying on an agency of the executive branch to provide products essential to Congress's day to day business.

Question 4: If GPO becomes an executive branch agency, what is likely to happen to the cost of congressional printing?

Response: The chances are strong that the cost of congressional printing would increase significantly. OMB's OIRA has long advocated decentralizing printing authority to the agencies. If that happens, GPO would no longer produce many agency products which are normally produced whenever systems and equipment are not utilized for congressional products. Without the capability to keep its plant and staffing resources occupied during congressional recesses and other low-demand periods, the cost of maintaining GPO's inplant operation would increase. This increased cost would have to be borne by the remaining work, congressional printing.

This is to respond to your letter of April 25, 1997 in which you enclosed some questions as a follow up to my appearance before your committee.

Enclosed is my response to Senator Ford's and your questions.

Sincerely,

Wm. I Boarman

William J. Boarman
Vice President

WJB:dl

Enclosures

43-211- 97 - 6

Answers to questions submitted by
Senator Ford for William J. Boarman

1. Can we be sure that a removal of JCP authority in the time frame suggested also guarantees that the public will have all government information efficiently distributed and available, and that there won't be any information falling through the cracks?

Answer: That is one of our concerns--the continued flow of information into the GPO pipeline. I think the answer is, that no, we cannot be sure that the removal of JCP authority will guarantee that government information will continue to be efficiently distributed and available. Therefore, we will have to consider safeguards for that event or JCP will have to be phased out in a way to assure that this does not happen.

2. Some have suggested moving GPO to the executive branch and keeping the Superintendent of Document in the legislative branch as the distributor of all government information to ensure that the public has access to information it pays to produce.

Do you think that this is a workable solution?

Answer: Moving the GPO to the Executive Branch is a bad idea and I have covered that in my statement so I will not plow that ground again, except to urge the Congress not to do it under any circumstance.

With regard to separating the Superintendent of Documents from the rest of GPO by leaving this important function in the legislative branch if GPO is moved to the executive branch, I would caution that the break-up of GPO would not be a good idea. GPO does three things very well. First, it prints in-house the overnight time sensitive document and security document for the Federal Government. Second, it procures from the private sector most of the rest of the government's printing requirements. Finally, it distributes all of the information that comes into its pipeline to the public and the depository library program. I think the best way to describe GPO is to say that it is like a three legged stool with each leg of the stool giving proper support to each other. Since two legs of the stool are responsible for producing the information, then our opinion is that they should not be in separate branches of government.

3. How would a transfer of GPO to the executive branch affect the current collective bargaining agreement(s)?

Answer: Since I am not a lawyer, I am not sure that I know the answer to your question. However, I believe that unless any legislation passed about this matter provides for the continued collective bargaining that has occurred over the last 74 years under the Keiss Act, that the employees at the GPO could lose the right to bargain collectively for wages and benefits. They would also lose the dispute resolution system contained in the Keiss Act, again unless new legislation provides for a similar procedure to be in place. I might add this needs to be done in the event the JCP downloads its powers to the Public Printer since the JCP now makes the final decision on wage disputes.