[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 28, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

                                 ______


                               speech of

                             HON. VIC FAZIO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 22, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1854) making 
     appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes:

  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I share the concerns of the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Orton], who is offering this amendment to add resources to 
the Superintendent of Documents.
  The committee is undertaking an enlightened policy of providing the 
greatest possible incentives to Federal agencies to shift their 
reliance on traditional printing and switch to electronic dissemination 
of documents to the greatest extent possible. By shifting the cost of 
printing documents to the originating agencies instead of assuming 
responsibility for it in our legislative appropriation, it is thought 
that agencies are more likely to scrutinize their needs and consider 
whether making documents available electronically will suit their 
purposes just as well, with the added benefit of decreased overall 
costs to the Federal Government.
  However, frequent users of our Federal depository libraries have 
raised some legitimate concerns.
  First, our experience with electronic dissemination is limited. For 
example, last year the Government Printing Office acquired and 
distributed over 20 million copies of publications, some 65,000 
titles--but only 306 titles were provided by GPO in electronic format 
to participating libraries.
  Second, although we want to encourage electronic distribution of 
information, it is also likely that the nature of some documents will 
never make them suitable for only electronic transfer either because of 
the nature of their use, or because the users don't have access to 
computers, or because the libraries need a permanent printed copy for 
historical research purposes.
  Last, there is also legitimate concern that agencies, faced with 
these additional costs, will use the costs as an excuse not to comply 
with their obligations under the law in making documents available to 
depository libraries. Since at least some problems with fugitive 
documents are of concern to depository libraries already, then this 
changeover is certainly a process we want to monitor carefully.
  Because of the legitimate concerns raised by librarians and others 
familiar with the depository library system, I offered and the chairman 
accepted language at the full Appropriations Committee meeting to 
ensure that the public's access to information will remain unchanged 
and to see that this changeover is administered smoothly. The language, 
which appears on page 31 of the report states:

       The Committee's intent is that the public's access to 
     information through Federal Depository Libraries will not be 
     reduced as a result of these policies, but will be maintained 
     and enhanced. The Committee expects the Superintendent of 
     Documents to monitor these new policies and report about the 
     progress of the agencies in converting to electronic format 
     and distribution, complying with the reimbursement policy, 
     and the effects of these policies on the availability of 
     documents to the public.

  So I share the concerns of the gentleman from Utah, and the committee 
has taken steps, as outlined in the report, to monitor this changeover 
carefully.
  I am also concerned about offsets offered by the gentleman from the 
Botanic Garden's conservatory renovation funds. Although the funds 
provided by the committee appear to be a substantial boost to the 
Botanic Garden's normal appropriations, the additional funds represent 
a multiyear effort that is also dependent on private funds for this 
long-overdue project.
  For both reasons, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to 
vote against it.


                          ____________________