    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

          TRANSFORMING GPO FOR THE 21ST CENTURY AND BEYOND: PART 4

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 11, 2017

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Available on the Internet:
                             http://www.govinfo.gov

                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    29-544                         WASHINGTON : 2018
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                       Committee on House Administration

                      GREGG HARPER, Mississippi, Chairman
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice         ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania,
        Chairman                           Ranking Member
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia           ZOE LOFGREN, California
    MARK WALKER, North Carolina          JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
    ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia

            TRANSFORMING GPO FOR THE 21ST CENTURY AND BEYOND: PART 4

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2017

                              House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:31 a.m., in Room
    1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gregg Harper
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Harper, Comstock, Smith, and
    Raskin.
        Staff Present: Sean Moran, Staff Director; Kim Betz, Deputy
    Staff Director/Policy and Oversight; Cole Felder, Deputy
    General Counsel; Dan Jarrell, Legislative Clerk; Bob Tapella,
    Professional Staff; Erin McCracken, Communications Director;
    Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Khalil Abboud, Minority
    Deputy Staff Director; and Eddie Flaherty, Minority Chief
    Clerk.
        The Chairman. I now call to order the Committee on House
    Administration for purposes of today's hearing, ``Transforming
    the Government Publishing Office for the 21st Century and
    Beyond,'' part 4 of our hearing series examining Title 44, the
    U.S. Government Publishing Office, and the Federal Depository
    Library Program. The hearing record will remain open for 5
    legislative days so Members may submit any additional materials
    they wish to include.
        A quorum is present, so we may proceed.
        Before I get into the substance of today's hearing, I would
    like to begin by thanking all of the stakeholders of GPO and
    the FDLP who have been engaged in this process over the past
    several months. I know that this has been a long process as the
    Committee, through regular order, has worked to review Title 44
    as it relates to the U.S. Government Publishing Office and the
    Federal Depository Library Program.
        I would like to give special thanks to GPO Director Davita
    Vance-Cooks, who has appeared twice before this Committee and
    has answered nearly a hundred detailed questions for the
    record, and I thank her for her cooperation and her openness in
    this effort.
        I also want to thank a number of the associations, such as
    the American Library Association, the Association of Law
    Libraries, the Medical Library Association, the Association of
    Research Libraries, the Association of Southeastern Research
    Libraries, and the Digital Library Federation, who have all
    provided both formal and informal input into the Committee's
    research.
        To the countless individual librarians from all types of
    libraries across the country, including public, law, and
    academic, who have taken the time to share insights, provide
    testimony, attend meetings, and open their doors for tours, I
    would like to say thank you for your dedication and service to
    our communities.
        Today's hearing will cover a myriad of topics in which this
    Committee would like further information or clarification. As
    we have learned through this review process, much of Title 44
    dates to the Printing Act of 1895. This act codified the public
    printing laws of the Federal Government, specifying the details
    of public documents, centralized all Federal printing at GPO,
    and established the Superintendent of Documents.
        Additionally, GPO and its stakeholders are asking for new
    authorities. We will be looking at five unrelated areas of
    Title 44 reform: first, the role GPO plays in the legislative
    process; second, congressional oversight of GPO as an agency in
    the legislative branch; third, constitutional principles of
    separation of powers as it relates to Congress' control of
    Federal printing and executive branch agencies; fourth,
    allowing GPO grant-making authority; and, fifth, permanent
    retention and preservation of both tangible and digital
    materials in the FDLP.
        I want to thank all the witnesses for being here, and we
    look forward to hearing from them.
        I would like to now recognize my colleague, Democratic
    member on the Committee, Jamie Raskin, for the purpose of
    providing an opening statement. Before he proceeds, I would
    also like to thank him for his joint efforts in this endeavor.
        Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for calling
    this hearing. And I want to thank the witnesses, also, for
    appearing today to offer testimony. It is an honor, as the
    newest member of the Committee, to get to make an opening
    statement on this important occasion.
        The input of the witnesses today is critical as we examine
    best how to support GPO in the process of modernizing its
    operations and adapting for the 21st century. Maintaining the
    official records of a constitutional democracy like ours is a
    sacred public duty. In authoritarian societies, it is essential
    to extinguish public memory and alter public records. But in
    democracy, it is essential to protect public memory and to
    maintain our records.
        The preservation of public records is a core service the
    government provides and is providing today. Whether online
    through the Federal Digital System or in person at one of the
    1,200 Federal Depository Library locations across the country,
    GPO keeps our citizens informed and actively engaged in
    government.
        Mr. Chairman, as a newly installed member of the Joint
    Committee on Printing, I had the great pleasure yesterday of
    touring GPO, where I saw firsthand how seriously the staff and
    the employees are taking this responsibility. I met with staff
    members at GPO who work late into the night every day waiting
    for Congress to wrap up our daily sessions in order to receive
    the Congressional Record for preparation for printing the next
    morning. I met with copy editors in GPO's print shop who pore
    through the Congressional Record looking for spelling and
    grammatical errors. I think I offered a couple of them jobs in
    my office.
        I toured the ID card manufacturing area where GPO staff is
    taking painstaking care to design and manufacture counterfeit-
    proof ID cards for highly secure events, including the most
    recent Presidential inauguration. I visited the printing floor,
    where reams of paper, including congressional publications and
    the Federal Register, are printed and sorted with amazing
    speed.
        And I got to see firsthand some of America's last few
    remaining artisans schooled in the arts of bookbinding and
    marbling, which is a dazzling process which only a handful of
    people still know today. But marbling is the process that
    allows for the pages to have these kinds of colorful designs on
    them.
        I learned during my tour that behind the creation of the
    documents that record the story of American Government are
    early rising and passionate public servants, many of them my
    constituents in Maryland, Mr. Chairman. There are multiple
    shifts who are working over there at GPO. But it is a 24-hour-
    a-day operation, sometimes 7 days a week.
        And the people there, most importantly, take extraordinary
    pride and honor in their work. One of them is my constituent
    John Crawford, a native Washingtonian and proud Marylander who
    has been with GPO for 51 years and says he has no interest in
    retiring because he loves the work that he is doing. He started
    as a journeyman bookbinder on the night shift in 1966 and is
    today the Managing Director of Plant Operations.
        So public servants like John deserve, obviously, not just
    good wages and job security, but our respect and admiration for
    the job that they are doing for us. And I know that our efforts
    to reform Title 44 will honor their service and commitment to
    America.
        I am eager to learn more about GPO's operations from this
    panel's perspective today as customers and as participants in
    the Federal Depository Library Program. In thinking about
    changes, we must listen carefully to the libraries. Not all of
    them have large endowments or active boards. Many of them rely
    on shrinking local budgets. And we need to give real
    consideration to a grant program that could empower them with
    the tools that make these documents available.
        So thanks, again, to the witnesses for their time and their
    candor. And thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for convening us in
    this hearing. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I would now like to introduce our first panel's witness.
    The Honorable Karen Haas serves as the Clerk of the U.S. House
    of Representatives. Ms. Haas was sworn in as Clerk of the House
    of Representatives for the 115th Congress on January 3, 2017.
    She is the 34th individual to serve as Clerk and previously
    served through the 109th, 110th, 112th, 113th, and 114th
    Congresses.
        As Clerk of the House, Ms. Haas plays a central role in the
    daily operations and legislative activities of the House and is
    the point of contact for many functions of the Government
    Publishing Office.
        Madam Clerk, the Committee has received your written
    testimony. You will have 5 minutes to present a summary of this
    submission. You know how the timing device works. So there will
    be a green light for the first 4 minutes, and then a yellow
    light for the last minute, and then red when the time has
    expired.
        The Chair now recognizes Ms. Haas for purposes of an
    opening statement.
        Welcome.

     STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KAREN L. HAAS, CLERK OF THE HOUSE,
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

        Ms. Haas. Thank you.
        Chairman Harper, Members of the Committee, thank you for
    the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to discuss
    our partnership with the Government Publishing Office and the
    future legislative support needs of the House.
        The responsibility of the Office of the Clerk is to support
    the legislative requirements of the U.S. House of
    Representatives. The professional men and women of our
    organization accomplish this each day by working closely with
    our business partners.
        One of the most important partners is the Government
    Publishing Office. On a daily basis, we work with GPO to
    compile and print the complete record of the daily business of
    the House, process bills and reports, and make legislative data
    available electronically to Members, staff, and the public in a
    timely and accurate manner.
        In addition, GPO also supplies the House with letterhead
    and envelopes, publishes congressionally mandated books, prints
    special event programs and invitations, and binds official
    publications.
        However, GPO provides far more than print services. It
    supplies and maintains the printers we use to enroll measures
    and produce the Journal used at the start of each legislative
    day, as well as the parchment paper and presentation cases for
    presenting enrollments to the President. We also require GPO's
    proofreading expertise for large enrollments and many official
    documents.
        GPO employees are often detailed to House committees and
    other institutional offices to lend expert support for
    processing legislative documents and compiling legislative
    history. They also provide the databases to make our data
    electronically available to Members, staff, and the public.
        This list is not exhaustive, but as you can see, the
    products and services GPO provides are extensive and critical
    to our daily operations.
        As the primary liaison to GPO for the House, my team
    interacts with the organization daily, often beginning before
    dawn to coordinate the arrival of the Congressional Record and
    measures for floor consideration, continuing throughout the day
    and into the night with the processing of the day's bills and
    reports, and finalizing the Record for the day.
        Today, GPO plays an important role in the efforts to make
    the legislative process more transparent. In June of 2016, GPO
    was tasked with managing the ``more documents in USLM'' project
    to publish enrolled bills, Public Laws, and Statutes at Large
    in a machine-readable format. When this project is complete in
    late spring of 2018, it will represent a big step forward in
    how we access and use legislative data while also opening the
    door to convert additional documents.
        As the Committee looks to modernize the legislative process
    and GPO's work, we believe there are several key points to
    consider.
        One, previous mandates on the number of printed copies are
    not necessary, but some number of copies is required for
    legislative operations.
        Flexibility is important. The round-the-clock services
    provided by GPO are critical to the legislative process of the
    House of Representatives and must remain.
        GPO is an indispensable part of the evolving effort to
    modernize how we prepare, distribute, authenticate, and archive
    legislative data. The ongoing standardization efforts should
    continue.
        Support beyond print and technological expertise is needed.
    The ability to enlist additional proofreaders or detailees to
    help committees or offices with their documentation process is
    essential.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to come before
    the Committee today, and I am happy to answer any questions
    that you may have.
        [The statement of Ms. Haas follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Clerk, for your testimony.
        I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
    And, without objection, all members will have 5 legislative
    days to submit to the chair additional written questions for
    the witness, which we will then forward and ask the witness to
    respond as soon as possible so that your answers could be
    included as a part of the record.
        And I thank you for being here and for all of your hard
    work. And I know in your testimony you state that although the
    required quantity of printed copies of documents has decreased,
    the Office of the Clerk must have the flexibility to coordinate
    with those documents' customers to determine what is needed.
        Would it be helpful if Title 44 gave you and the Secretary
    of the Senate the ability to determine quantities of documents
    produced by GPO rather than just making it a specification in
    the law?
        Ms. Haas. I do think it would be helpful to allow us to
    manage our customers' needs. So providing that flexibility, I
    think, would be important. But I would leave it up to the
    Committee as to the best way to accomplish that.
        The Chairman. Sure. But if you had the ability to determine
    that on a case-by-case basis, you believe your office could
    accommodate that and that would give you that flexibility?
        Ms. Haas. I do.
        The Chairman. Okay. And if we were coming in with a
    specification as to a number, that sometimes could be rather
    arbitrary.
        Ms. Haas. Absolutely. And I think we need to, as you are
    thinking about this going forward, think about the future and
    the technology changes we have already seen.
        The Chairman. Sure. And it is always a challenge to
    anticipate that technology changing.
        Ms. Haas. That is right.
        The Chairman. Also, I know that you certainly strive to
    provide the transparency and public access to the House's
    activities. Are there any additional ways in which the House
    and GPO could work together to increase access?
        Ms. Haas. I would suggest that we continue the efforts with
    the Bulk Data Task Force. I mentioned in the testimony that we
    already have a project in the works that GPO is managing. There
    are several other documents that need to also be translated and
    moved into the USLM format, and I would suggest that we
    continue to have GPO partner with us in that effort.
        The Chairman. Great.
        You know, the Committee has certainly heard from other
    customers about GPO's billing practices. As the House's primary
    point of contact, how would you describe GPO's billing? And is
    it timely, accurate, understandable? Help us clarify that.
        Ms. Haas. Sure. Several years ago we identified that as an
    issue, quite honestly, for us in managing the items that were
    going down to GPO, and we worked closely with GPO to refine the
    billing practices at the time. We regularly receive the source
    documents from them so we can compare what is produced through
    the Clerk's Office and with GPO.
        We have also taken it upon ourselves to work on our
    requisition system, and we have updated and modernized that
    requisition system from the House. What I would suggest is that
    we would work with GPO going forward on their side of that
    practice to continue to modernize that practice. But over the
    last several years we have seen an improvement in how GPO has
    provided us the data on a regular basis.
        The Chairman. Okay. Thank you.
        The House makes audio-visual recordings of Committee
    meetings and floor proceedings. Are there ways that the House
    could improve long-term access to these recordings?
        Ms. Haas. I think that is an excellent question. Currently,
    I am aware of a couple of ways that the videos are made
    available. They are made available on Congress.Gov through the
    Library, and I believe that is a system that the Committee put
    in place. We also have the archived copies of the committee
    video that is part of their committee archive for the future,
    and those are placed at the National Archives. And then, in
    addition, I know Members make their videos available on their
    YouTube channels.
        So, as far as I know at this point, the Library of Congress
    is working well. But I would really defer to the Committee on
    how they would like to see that going forward.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you for your input and the great
    work that your team does.
        And the chair will now recognize Mr. Raskin for 5 minutes
    for any questions he may have.
        Mr. Raskin. Chairman Harper, thank you very much.
        I want to follow up on the chairman's first question about
    the Congressional Record and how many copies need to be made
    for that and should there be more flexibility to meet what the
    actual needs are.
        Can you give us a sense of where the printed copies go now?
    You know, I understand that there were Members of Congress and
    Presidents, I think Lyndon Johnson, maybe Senator Byrd, used to
    read the Congressional Record every day. I don't know if there
    are that many people who do that now since we do have our TVs
    on and we are able to kind of keep track of what people are
    saying. But are most of them used here on Capitol Hill or are
    they sent out across the country? Are they in libraries? I
    mean, where are the actual hard copies going?
        Ms. Haas. Well, I can speak only to the ones that come to
    Capitol Hill. And so, as you mentioned, the Members' offices
    are not getting the copies as they used to. A large quantity
    comes to the Legislative Resource Center to make them available
    to Members and the public if they are interested in getting a
    copy. It is available online, as you know.
        But they are also very important to our day-to-day
    operations. We use them on the House floor. We use them in our
    Legislative Operations team, our Official Reporters,
    Legislative Counsel. So there are entities within the House
    that need the Congressional Record to operate each day. We also
    have copies available on the floor as it is part of our regular
    proceedings each day to see that that information is out there
    and available to Members when they are on the floor.
        Mr. Raskin. Gotcha.
        Do you think there is a role for the private sector to play
    in the work of preserving the Congressional Record?
        Ms. Haas. I think that would be open to discussion. I think
    one of the keys right now is how the information is available
    currently on FDsys, the authentication process that takes place
    through GPO, and the key is to continue to archive it. One of
    the responsibilities of the Clerk is to keep copies of any
    publication, two copies in our archives, for history purposes
    and forever. And so we also keep paper copies, as well as
    electronic, of the Congressional Record.
        Mr. Raskin. Are you working actively with the GPO to figure
    out ways to improve public access to information about what
    goes on in the House?
        Ms. Haas. Oh, absolutely.
        Mr. Raskin. Tell me how that process works.
        Ms. Haas. Sure. So, as I mentioned in my testimony, GPO has
    been a partner for many years with us, most recently with the
    Bulk Data Task Force that was established. And what was behind
    that effort was a real desire by our customers, both internal
    and external, to get legislative data.
        So GPO has been able to provide the expertise. They have
    the databases available where they display our information. And
    they have taken the lead on different documents that the House
    produces and putting them in a standardized form, but then
    outside groups can take that information and use it to their
    benefit.
        Mr. Raskin. Gotcha.
        All right. Well, that is all I have now, Mr. Chairman. I
    will yield back to you.
        The Chairman. I want to thank you for your appearance
    today. And I know you would love to answer a lot more
    questions, but before we close with you on the first panel, is
    there anything that you would care to add in light of the
    questions that have been asked?
        Ms. Haas. No, I just appreciate the opportunity.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much for being here. Thank
    you.
        Ms. Haas. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Clerk.
        That will conclude our first panel, and we will take just a
    moment to set the second panel of witnesses on the table.
        The Chairman. I want to thank each of you for being here
    today to assist us on what has become a very important mission
    for us this year as we review title 44, talk to the various
    stakeholders. And I am going to take a moment now to introduce
    each of you.
        Eric Petersen is a specialist in American National
    Government with the Congressional Research Service, who will
    discuss the role of the Joint Committee on Printing and the
    constitutional principles of separation of powers as it relates
    to Congress' control of Federal printing and executive branch
    agencies.
        Robin Dale is the Deputy Director of Library Services at
    the Institute of Museum and Library Services, an independent
    agency in the executive branch, who will discuss Federal grant-
    making to libraries.
        Roger Schonfeld is the Director of Libraries and Scholarly
    Communications Program at Ithaka S+R, a not-for-profit service
    that helps academic and cultural communities effectively use
    digital technologies, who will discuss preservation of tangible
    and digital materials.
        The Committee has received each of your written
    testimonies. Each witness will be given 5 minutes to present a
    summary of that submission. You have seen how it works with the
    Clerk who just testified. You have a button, obviously, to turn
    on your microphone, and then the timer clock will work there.
        And so the Chair would now recognize our witnesses for the
    purposes of their opening statements.
        And I will begin with you, Dr. Petersen, and you are
    allowed 5 minutes. Thank you.

        STATEMENTS OF DR. ERIC PETERSEN, SPECIALIST IN AMERICAN
    NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, LIBRARY OF
       CONGRESS; MS. ROBIN L. DALE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR LIBRARY
      SERVICES, INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES; AND MR.
         ROGER C. SCHONFELD, DIRECTOR OF LIBRARY AND SCHOLARLY
                   COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM, ITHAKA S+R

                       STATEMENT OF ERIC PETERSEN

        Mr. Petersen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
    Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today.
        The Joint Committee on Printing, established in 1846, and
    GPO, established in 1861, have played central roles in ensuring
    public access to government information. At the same time,
    changes in governance and information technology have raised
    questions about the roles and activities of the Joint Committee
    and in some cases the capacity of GPO to carry out its
    missions.
        With regard to governance, JCP's authority to oversee and
    enforce statutory authorities that mandate government printing
    through GPO have been widely questioned by the executive branch
    since the 1983 Supreme Court decision in Immigration and
    Naturalization Service v. Chadha.
        The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel has
    twice concluded that many of JCP's authorities, particularly
    provisions mandating JCP's prior approval before an executive
    agency can have materials printed outside of GPO, have been
    invalidated by Chadha. And I would hasten to mention that I am
    not an attorney. In this case I am speaking more to the policy
    consequences.
        From OLC's perspective, executive agencies are able to
    procure printing services from providers other than GPO. And
    since then, for the governance reasons, GPO workloads and
    revenues have declined and agency-controlled printing and
    publishing efforts have resulted in an unknown number of
    fugitive documents being created and not getting into GPO's
    Federal Digital System or into the collections of the Federal
    Depository Library participants. And what this does is
    potentially makes them unavailable to policymakers or the
    general public.
        Another concern raised by congressional and other observers
    arises with regard to the Joint Committee and includes
    questions as to whether or not its responsibilities might
    formally be performed by other entities.
        With regard to technology, government information and
    publishing authorities, as the chairman noted in his opening
    statement, have remained in substantially the same state as
    they were when they were first enacted in the 19th and 20th
    centuries, before digital creation and distribution became the
    norm. The online version of the U.S. Code mentions current JCP
    authorities in about 60 sections. Thirty-seven of those
    sections were originally enacted a century or more ago, chiefly
    in the Printing Act of 1895.
        Similarly, GPO is subject to 129 Code sections in Title 44,
    of which 105 were first enacted during or prior to 1917. Some
    of these authorities over the past quarter century have been
    called into question by the Government Accountability Office,
    the National Academy of Public Administration, and in an
    earlier session of this hearing, the Director of GPO.
        And while there does appear to be broad recognition of the
    shortcomings of some current authorities in Title 44, the way
    ahead is complicated by the lack of a stable, robust set of
    technology and information management practices similar to
    those that were in place when Congress enacted the bulk of
    government information policies. By 1895, the written word on a
    tangible object was a technology that had a 4,000-year track
    record.
        In the fourth or fifth decade of transition from the
    tangible written word to ubiquitous digital creation and
    distribution, permanent retention or preservation of those
    formats is still challenging. And instead of a fixed standard,
    as is available for tangible printing products, digital
    preservation and retention efforts have not yet produced a
    digital equivalent with the preservation capacity of tangible
    items. And until and unless we get to a point where we have
    that, any effort to establish standards for the production and
    retention of digital materials runs the risk of potentially
    privileging a current standard or denying Congress, the
    American people, and GPO the opportunity to take advantage of
    some as-yet-undiscovered sets of technologies.
        I think that is a good place to leave it for the moment.
    Thank you again for inviting me to testify. And I will be happy
    to address any questions you may have.
        [The statement of Mr. Petersen follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, very much, Dr. Petersen.
        The Chair will now recognize Ms. Dale for 5 minutes for her
    testimony.
        Thank you, and welcome.

                       STATEMENT OF ROBIN L. DALE

        Ms. Dale. Good morning, Chairman Harper, Congressman
    Raskin, and of course the other Members of the Committee.
        On behalf of the Institute of Museum and Library Services
    Director, Dr. Kathryn K. Matthew, I want to thank you for this
    invitation to submit testimony before the House Committee on
    Administration as you examine the modernization of the
    Government Publishing Office.
        I first would like to take a moment and give you a brief
    overview of IMLS, where I serve as the Deputy Director for
    Library Services.
        The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the Federal
    agency with the primary responsibility for ensuring the
    availability of museum, library, and information services to
    meet the essential needs of the people of the United States.
        IMLS is an independent grant-making agency and the primary
    source of Federal support for the Nation's approximately
    120,000 libraries and 35,000 museums and related organizations.
    IMLS was created with the passage of the Museum and Library
    Services Act of 1996, which, as amended, authorizes the agency
    to award financial assistance, collect data, form strategic
    partnerships, and advise the President, Congress, and other
    Federal agencies on museum, library, and information services.
    The agency consolidates Federal library and information
    services programs dating back to 1956 and Federal museum
    programs dating back to 1976.
        IMLS ensures critical access to the development of library
    services throughout the United States, its territories, and
    Native American tribes pursuant to the Library Services and
    Technology Act. IMLS supports library initiatives that
    facilitate innovation and workforce development through
    competitive grant programs.
        Our Grants to States Program is the largest Federal funding
    support for library services in the United States. It is
    designed to stimulate the use of State and local funds for
    library improvement throughout the Nation. It encourages States
    to implement comprehensive programs to meet library services
    needs of their residents by establishing State Library
    Administrative Agencies, or SLAAs, as we call them, and they
    are charged by laws with the extension and development of
    library services. Fifty-nine State agencies now ensure that
    library services reach individuals in every State and
    territory.
        To receive Federal support from IMLS, an SLAA must submit a
    plan that details library service goals for a 5-year period and
    describes activities that will be supported with the assistance
    of Federal funds. Each State is then responsible for leveraging
    non-Federal, State and local match funds it receives to
    increase the impact of the investment. In addition, each State
    must sustain a ``Maintenance of Effort'' level of State funding
    on libraries and library programs to ensure that Federal funds
    enhance and do not supplant State funds.
        They may use the funds to support State initiatives and
    services. They may also distribute the funds through
    competitive sub-awards or also in cooperative agreements with
    public, academic, research, school, tribal, and special
    libraries or consortia, and every year over 1,500 Grants to
    States projects carry out these statutory purposes, ensuring
    the availability of library services by providing access to
    electronic databases, computer instruction, homework centers,
    digitization of special collections, access to e-books and
    adaptive technology, and tools supporting workforce
    development.
        A priority of the program is to address the needs of
    underserved communities and persons having difficulty using
    libraries. More than 10 percent of our grant funds over the
    last several years have been used to support library services
    for individuals who are blind or visually handicapped or have
    other disabilities.
        IMLS funds also support libraries' provision of science,
    technology, engineering and math, or STEM programs, designed to
    meet the needs of their communities. Library users receive
    hands-on instruction in science and technology to which they
    would normally not have access. This program supports career
    development as well as robust inquiry and skills essential for
    all citizens to lead productive and informed lives.
        At the end of each 5-year period, SLAAs evaluate their
    library programs based upon their original 5-year plan. These
    plans and evaluations are the foundation for improving practice
    and delivering services, and they must file annual financial
    and programmatic reports.
        Our statutory responsibilities for grant-making also
    include a range of competitive grant programs, including grants
    to Native American Tribes, including federally recognized
    Tribes, as well as Alaska Native villages, regional
    corporations, village corporations, and organizations that
    primarily represent and serve Native Hawaiians, to enable
    access to library services; National Leadership Grants to
    support innovation, and the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian
    Program to help build a diverse and qualified librarian
    workforce.
        We handle all aspects of grant administration, applying
    proper controls to ensure equity, fairness, and fiscal
    management and oversight. For example, our peer review process
    is central to its grant-making function and professionals with
    experience and expertise in a vast array of library disciplines
    and practices review all proposals from eligible institutions.
    Peer reviewers help ensure that financial assistance provided
    for projects that are appropriate to the applicant's capability
    and the scale of the overall programs, as well as the defined
    project goals, and we conduct cost analyses of these projects.
        We monitor and oversee grantees, requiring that they
    maintain fiscal control and employ accounting procedures that
    ensure the proper disbursement for and accounting of Federal
    funds, and our agency has been recognized as a model for
    transparency, results-based goals, and priority setting, as
    well as for responsiveness and spending discipline.
        And we are going up.
        So, in conclusion, I would like to thank Chairman Harper
    and the Committee Members for this opportunity to provide
    testimony on behalf of IMLS, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Dale follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Dale. And it is good to know
    no trapdoor opens up if you go a few minutes or a little bit
    over.
        Ms. Dale. That is correct. Well, you know, I watched it go
    down. And then I missed that the numbers would then go up once
    you were speaking over. So----
        The Chairman. We are good. We are good.
        Ms. Dale. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        The Chair will now recognize Mr. Schonfeld for 5 minutes.
    Thank you. Or 5\1/2\ minutes, whichever you prefer.

                    STATEMENT OF ROGER C. SCHONFELD

        Mr. Schonfeld. Chairman Harper, Mr. Raskin, Members of the
    Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify here today.
        I am a librarian who has led a number of projects examining
    preservation issues in the transition from print to digital.
    Nearly a decade ago, I led two projects focused on structural
    challenges facing the Federal Depository Library Program and
    how the vital work of that program can be sustained. Today I
    will focus my remarks on factors I hope you will consider
    related to the long-term preservation of government
    publications.
        Preservation is an imperative for ensuring permanent public
    access, and it has several components beyond simply storing and
    retaining publications. First, there are technical issues, such
    as physical security, disaster planning, file preservation, and
    format changes. And second, there are governance issues,
    including how preservation is organized and funded. I want to
    focus on organizational issues today both for print and for
    digital preservation.
        At a time of transition from tangible to increasingly
    digital access for many information resources, it remains
    essential that at least some print copies be retained. Because
    of research that I commissioned from a Berkeley operations
    researcher, we have a framework for determining the number of
    print copies of a given item that are needed for preservation
    purposes. Depending on a number of factors, including the
    condition of the collection and whether the materials are in
    circulation, we may need fewer than 10 copies to ensure their
    long-term preservation.
        Federal government publications with widely available
    trusted digital copies are well-suited to this type of
    analysis. But the FDLP is not organized to optimize for the
    preservation of print materials that are increasingly accessed
    digitally.
        Academic libraries today are banding together into what I
    call trust networks to take collective responsibility for print
    collections. Each library individually can thereby reduce space
    and other resources devoted to print collections. Trust
    networks typically involve a more explicit commitment to
    retention, and in some cases preservation, than any single
    library was ever able to make for similar materials on its own.
        The Association of Southeastern Research Libraries is a
    case in point. Participating libraries focus on a certain
    agency or set of agencies committing to build and maintain a
    collection more rigorously than the FDLP itself mandates. This
    type of distributed but systematic approach is a fantastic
    model for what the future of the program could look like. Trust
    networks like this one frequently cross State boundaries, which
    is a challenge for the FDLP's State-based model.
        Looking ahead, the FDLP should evolve, along with library
    preservation strategy, to allow a trust network of libraries to
    serve in the role of the regional repository. GPO should
    integrate the Preservation Stewards Program and its regional
    discard policy along these lines and run them more proactively
    to ensure preservation in modern, yet robust and systematic
    ways.
        As government publications are now typically issued in
    digital format, it is essential that this format also be
    preserved. But many Federal publications are not being gathered
    up into the FDsys, GovInfo platform. It is therefore reasonable
    to worry if their preservation as a coherent collection is
    failing.
        GPO needs a stronger focus or abilities to enable it to
    build this coherent collection of Federal publications or an
    alternative other than GPO must be found for doing so. This
    issue must be addressed both prospectively and retrospectively
    to ensure that gaps in the holdings of digital and digitized
    publications are filled.
        Additionally, I would question whether GPO should have sole
    responsibility for digital preservation. Best practice is for
    preservation responsibilities to be transferred from the
    creator and publisher to one or more third parties representing
    the users of publications. Consequently, there should be a
    strong third-party role for preservation of Federal
    publications. The government should have a formal agreement
    with this third-party and provide stable financial support.
        This third party would take custody of publications when
    they are issued and maintain them in a diversity of political
    jurisdictions, including, in this case, at least one
    jurisdiction outside the United States. At any point the
    publications become unavailable through normal channels, the
    third party would ensure that public access is not interrupted.
    The FDLP could be restructured to provide for such a model or
    GPO could contract with a third party outside of the parameters
    of the FDLP.
        I thank this Committee for your work to ensure preservation
    and access to government publications. By modernizing the FDLP
    and aligning it with preservation best practices, you can help
    to ensure that these vital government publications will remain
    available for the American public for generations to come.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement of Mr. Schonfeld follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I want to thank each of you for your
    testimony. This is an issue that is very important, I believe,
    to the future of how all of this is going to work.
        The gentlelady from Virginia, Mrs. Comstock, is rotating
    between three different hearings set all during the same time.
    She will have to run. So I am going to take a liberty as Chair
    and recognize Mrs. Comstock first for 5-minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Petersen, in your testimony you stated that Congress
    could consider a process by which the potential adoption of
    newer technologies and approaches reflective of emerging
    information management practices might be specified in statute.
    Could you explain how Congress could delegate that authority to
    GPO? Would it be through some rulemaking process or how that
    might be done?
        Mr. Petersen. Thank you for the question.
        I guess the first step is to identify a technology adoption
    process, and this is one option for considering how to
    implement the flexibility to bring in emerging technologies
    over time.
        One option is an expert panel, folks who look at this
    stuff, folks like Mr. Schonfeld, who study it deeply and can
    see what is coming and how the extent to what existing
    technologies are, you know, expiring or being overtaken by
    newer things.
        What then could happen is that the process of technology
    determination could be enacted as the method of implementing
    it. And this could be overseen by GPO. This could be overseen
    by another entity.
        And it would potentially be a regulatory option. GPO could
    implement these things by regulation. Perhaps the statute could
    mandate that the technology development process be carried out
    at a regular interval, and then, in the absence of some manner
    of objection, be implemented that way.
        There are a number of options as to how that could move
    forward.
        Mrs. Comstock. Okay. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Schonfeld, in your testimony you talked about a
    third-party role for preservation. Could you expand upon that?
    And, as you mentioned, the Federal Information Preservation
    Network, would that effort by GPO be enough to preserve the
    Federal collection?
        Mr. Schonfeld. Thank you for the question.
        In terms of third-party preservation, we have developed a
    system--Ms. Dale was actually one of the originators of it--of
    certifying trusted digital repositories. It is a process that
    makes it possible for us to have assurance that these
    repositories are audited and certified.
        Even if FDsys or GovInfo, the GPO's repositories, were to
    be certified as trustworthy, governance principles would still
    argue for a strong third-party that itself would be certified
    as trustworthy. But as you may know, GPO attempted to have its
    own digital repository certified, and the certification has not
    yet been received. This should, perhaps, cause some special
    concerns for us about whether GPO is in the right position
    here.
        I would answer about the Federal Information Preservation
    Network by-saying that what GPO really needs to establish here
    is a risk-informed set of preservation goals. And I think that
    that is really what we are talking about, how do you understand
    what the risks are, what the risk factors are relative to the
    resources that are available for addressing those risks. That
    would yield a set of technical objectives, like how many copies
    do you need, under what environmental conditions, and so forth,
    for the digital side.
        But the answer is not just to get as much as possible.
    Preservation isn't about as much as possible. That can yield
    far too much preservation, and therefore inefficiency, or it
    can yield far too little preservation, putting items, materials
    that we care about, at risk.
        So I would say that thinking about how GPO could get to a
    more risk-informed way of thinking about preservation against
    the tradeoffs and resources that are required would be an
    important step forward.
        Mrs. Comstock. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Maryland,
    Mr. Raskin, for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you, very much.
        Let's see. Mr. Petersen, let me start with you. You piqued
    my interest with your invocation of the Chadha decision, which,
    of course, found that Congress, when it acts in its legislative
    capacity, must act bicameral, with presentment to the
    President. Are you suggesting that that creates a problem for
    each house essentially controlling its own printing and
    publishing operations? Was that the relevance of it?
        Mr. Petersen. No, sir. It had to do with the capacity to
    implement 44 U.S.C. 501, which states that all government
    printing goes through the Government Publishing Office at the
    direction of the Joint Committee on Printing. And following the
    decision in 1983, a number of executive branch agencies spent
    the next decade asking why GPO and JCP were in this position in
    light of Chadha.
        So it was a consequence where, with the Department of
    Justice's Office of Legal Counsel's opinions, that JCP had no
    constitutional role in light of Chadha. Many executive agencies
    chose to take their printing business elsewhere, either doing
    it within the agency or contracting out on their own
    authorities.
        A consequence of this is, because of the funding model of
    GPO, that GPO had less revenue to support the various
    nonprinting activities that it has been assigned to over the
    past 25 years.
        Mr. Raskin. I see. And that is an historical process that
    has continued, the executive agencies?
        Mr. Petersen. I would say it is reasonably set at this
    point. But it is the turning point at which Congress began to
    question what JCP might do in the future. And it changed a
    little bit the model of how GPO went out and found work from
    the executive branch.
        Mr. Raskin. Gotcha. Thank you.
        Ms. Dale, a lot of libraries don't have big endowments and
    are facing shrinking local budgets today, and as the Committee
    considers providing grant-making authority to the GPO, what can
    we learn from your grant-making program about how to make this
    an effective operation if it is to happen?
        Ms. Dale. Thank you for the question.
        I would say in terms of the IMLS grant-making and drawing
    parallels, it is about the ability to understand the scope and
    the scale of what grant-making would be within there and ensure
    that there are proper controls in place as we do have at IMLS.
    As I mentioned earlier, we have anything from fiscal controls.
    We have appropriate peer review in grant-making and grant
    selection. We have grants that run from the tens of thousands
    up into the millions of dollars. So we have appropriate
    processes and procedures in place that allow us to scale and
    address those needs as they come in.
        I would say that those principles are things that would
    need to be in place for this program should the grant-making
    authority be something you decide upon. Of course, IMLS doesn't
    have a position at this time in terms of the question and
    within the legislative and administrative purview of the
    Committee to address the grant-making authority.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Schonfeld, finally, you say that preservation of
    government information may require, or ideally requires, the
    involvement of a third party, and I think you suggested in your
    testimony possibly outside of the country. Who becomes
    responsible for maintaining the security of that information,
    both in its digital and tangible forms, if we are to delegate
    it to a third party?
        Mr. Schonfeld. Thank you for the question.
        Just to make sure that it is clear, I don't mean to suggest
    that the third party itself has to be administratively located
    outside of the country but that the preservation best practice
    would call for at least one copy of the material to be held in
    a jurisdiction outside of the country. So just to make sure
    that I didn't leave any ambiguity there.
        The question as to security of the information, in this
    case I believe we are talking about publications of the
    government, which is to say materials that are publicly
    accessible. So I think that there are questions not so much
    about security in terms of keeping them from being made
    available, but certainly there are questions about
    authentication and making sure that the materials themselves
    are authenticated and authentic. And I think that there are
    processes and procedures in place technically, through some of
    the existing third-party preservation entities, that would
    accommodate for that kind of question.
        Mr. Raskin. Great.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. And,
    again, thanks to each of you for being here.
        Dr. Petersen, as the Committee prepares to work on and
    rewrite Title 44, what guidance would you give us to ensure
    success?
        Mr. Petersen. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, the
    Congressional Research Service doesn't tell Congress what to
    do. That is not just in statute, that is pursuant to fairly
    regular reminders from this Committee among others.
        The Chairman. But we are very open-minded and we are okay.
    While you can't tell us, you can suggest heavily.
        Mr. Petersen. Well, I think that there is a long two-and-a-
    half-decade process of considering the position of the Joint
    Committee on Printing. I think there are regular conversations
    related--and you just had a piece of that with the Clerk a few
    minutes ago--considering the specificity of the types and
    amounts of printing that need to happen moving forward.
        We know that most users, for example, rely on the digital
    manifestations of most congressional documents. At the same
    time, there are archival purposes for tangible processes,
    because we don't have an enduring archival standard for digital
    things. There are still people who like to look at it and mark
    it up. So there is going to be something there.
        I don't think, for example, on the Congressional Record--
    you know, there are somewhere north of 29,000 copies of the
    daily edition authorized. My understanding from GPO's budget
    submission is that they print about 1,700 or so. And while that
    authorization has been made, there isn't a public record of
    where it has been made or under what authority. And surfacing
    those sorts of bits of information about how the printing
    process works, how the distribution process works, may be
    helpful in elevating the transparency of the government
    information process.
        The Chairman. Thank you for those suggestions. Thank you.
        Ms. Dale, if I may ask you, has IMLS ever been defined in
    statute to handle grant-making for an agency or other entity in
    government?
        Ms. Dale. So we have a number. There is a bit in the
    written testimony that was provided in terms of the interagency
    agreements that we have done with our grant-making authority
    that delves into that realm, including when establishing the
    National Museum of African American History and Culture through
    Public Law 108-104, Congress authorized IMLS to establish grant
    programs to build the capacity of museums of African-American
    History and Culture, in consultation with the Director of
    Museums.
        The Department of Interior leverages IMLS' peer-review and
    grant-making expertise to award and manage library and museum-
    related grants for collections care. So we do have partnerships
    and advise other agencies on those matters.
        The Chairman. So you have had that collaboration with other
    Federal agencies?
        Ms. Dale. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. What models for collaboration have worked
    well in the past? And notwithstanding a possible inclusion in
    statute, are there opportunities for IMLS to collaborate with
    GPO?
        Ms. Dale. Certainly there is precedent there for IMLS to be
    able to collaborate with GPO on, I would imagine, any numbers.
    As I mentioned, there were two different examples there. There
    are others that we could provide where we have worked with
    other agencies and assisted them with grant programs. Those
    were the two that were easiest.
        I would say that we are certainly flexible and willing to
    hear more about the interest. Again, we don't have a particular
    position on which way that the Committee would choose to go.
    But we would certainly be willing to take in any questions you
    might have and provide any further technical assistance or
    advice on options.
        The Chairman. And certainly you--as you stated earlier,
    there are grants given in various amounts, from----
        Ms. Dale. Yes, sir. From 10,000 to----
        The Chairman [continuing]. From thousands to millions.
        Ms. Dale. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. What level of funding would a grant-making
    program need in order to be effective?
        Ms. Dale. So I will take that back to my earlier comment
    about scale and scope, and I think it really depends on the
    goals of the program and whether it would be competitive or if
    there is a sort of Grants to States-based model where a certain
    amount of money is given to every State based upon some
    formula.
        And then I would just say that there is certainly a need to
    provide the level of oversight and review and financial
    accountability. And certainly we continue to work on all the
    processes to make sure that they are in place, and we do
    improvements all the time. But there is a great deal of work
    assisting, both providing technical assistance to grantees, but
    as well as the entire grant-making process.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Raskin, do you have any followup questions in light of
    my questioning?
        Mr. Raskin. I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        I want to thank each of you for being here. This is a very
    important process. It may not appear to be the most glamorous
    topic as we go through Title 44, but it is very important how
    we are going to operate and how we are going to move forward.
    And I know, Mr. Schonfeld, you mentioned that as well.
        And before I close out the questioning, just one quick
    question. Twenty years ago we could never have imagined the
    digital transformation of storage of this. Do you have a
    glimpse, as you study this, where we are going to be in 20
    years?
        Mr. Schonfeld. Well, I think that we are going to see the
    transition from print to digital formats continue to
    accelerate, the transition from tangible to digital formats
    continue to accelerate, and I think that we are going to see
    all sorts of ways that we will move from static publications to
    more interactive kinds of information resources.
        At the same time, I think we have seen that the transition
    has not taken place as quickly for many formats as some people
    would have expected. And we have to be cautious in how we make
    that transition so that we respond to reading behaviors, as
    libraries we support the needs of the public and the academics
    who need the materials that we have.
        So I think we are going to see an increasingly digital
    future, but one where libraries have a very strong role, and a
    stronger role even, in providing preservation and access and
    other services.
        The Chairman. Great.
        Well, you look at how things have changed from 8-tracks to
    iTunes. It has been remarkable. And I am sure we are going to
    see that in the roles that we are all playing here.
        Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
    to submit to the Chair additional written witness questions
    that could be forwarded to each witness to answer as promptly
    as they can in order for those to be made a part of the record.
        Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]