[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 23 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1730-S1731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       THE GROWING CRISIS IN PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on February 11, in his capacity as 
chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing, the senior Senator from 
Virginia testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Legislative 
Branch Appropriations Subcommittee.
  The purpose of that testimony was to provide justification for the 
Joint Committee's Fiscal Year 1998 appropriations request, and to 
outline the priorities of the Joint Committee in the current and future 
fiscal years.
  Chief among the Joint Committee's priorities are reform of Title 44 
U.S.C., and the implementation of means to assure that the American 
public continues to retain access to information created by the Federal 
Government at taxpayer expense.
  Currently, the Government Printing Office is charged under title 44 
with the management of the Federal Government's procurement of 
information products and with the maintenance of the public's access to 
these products--through the Federal Depository Library System, through 
the GPO Bookstore Program, and through GPO access, the on-line service 
of the Government Printing Office.
  In recent years, however, various Federal agencies have taken to 
ignoring title 44. Some are procuring their information products 
directly from the private sector without going through the GPO's 
private sector procurement program. Others are setting up in-house 
facilities to create their own information products. In addition, a few 
agencies, in an effort to be entrepreneurial, have taken to making 
arrangements with organizations outside the Federal Government for the 
dissemination of taxpayer-funded information. In doing so, this 
information has become copyrighted, or had copyright-like restrictions 
imposed upon it. The net result is that the public's access to 
taxpayer-funded information has been greatly restricted.
  Mr. President, the Government Printing Office's Superintendent of 
Documents, Mr. Wayne Kelley recently delivered a speech on this issue. 
In his remarks, Mr. Kelley provided specific details and raised a 
number of important questions about these activities and their 
detrimental effect on the American public.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Kelley's speech before the 
Government Documents Roundtable, Federal Documents Task Force, of 
February 15, 1997, be printed in full at the conclusion of this 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Rules and 
Administration, which also is chaired by the senior Senator from 
Virginia, will hold 2 days of hearings later this spring on legislation 
to correct this situation and to reform other areas of title 44.
  It is this Senator's intention that this legislation will be 
supported on a bicameral and bipartisan basis, and that the 
administration will fully support it as well.
  Mr. President, the strength of America's system of government lies 
with an informed public. Free and open access to information created at 
taxpayer expense is the principle which has enabled the United States 
to endure and prosper for over 200 years, making this Nation the 
oldest, continuous, constitutional democratic republic in the world.
  Members of Congress have a responsibility to our Founding Fathers, to 
our citizenry, and to future generations to ensure that this principle 
is maintained.

[[Page S1731]]

                               Exhibit 1

          Remarks of Wayne Kelley, Superintendent of Documents

       I'd like to take a few minutes this morning to discuss a 
     growing trend to transfer Federal Government information from 
     the public domain to private ownership.
       This is happening in a number of ways. One is for agencies 
     to establish exclusive or restrictive distribution 
     arrangements that limit public access to information. Another 
     is to charge fees or royalties for reuse or redissemination 
     of public information. In some recent cases government 
     publishers have actually assisted in transferring copyright 
     to the new owner.
       Let me give you an example. For many years, the National 
     Cancer Institute procured the printing of its Journal of the 
     National Cancer Institute through the Government Printing 
     Office. The Superintendent of Documents Sales Program sold 
     subscriptions to the Journal and it was distributed to 
     Federal Depository Libraries at GPO expense.
       In 1987, NCI made the semimonthly Journal a more current, 
     higher-quality cancer research publication. It was heavily 
     promoted by our Office of Marketing in coordination with the 
     NCI staff. By 1992, the Journal was selling 6,240 copies at 
     an annual subscription of $51, and was distributed free to 
     more than 800 selecting depository libraries throughout the 
     nation. It had achieved recognition as ``the number one 
     journal'' in its field, publishing the best original research 
     papers in oncology from around the world.
       In 1993, the National Cancer Institute notified us that 
     they were developing a ``Consolidated Services'' concept 
     making all print and electronic data information available 
     only through an ``Information Associates Program.'' GPO could 
     no longer sell subscriptions at $51. The only way to get a 
     subscription was to buy an Associates Program membership from 
     NCI for $100. NCI agreed to supply depository copies at the 
     agency's expense. GPO continued to sell individual copies in 
     bookstores at $7 each. In December 1994, the International 
     Cancer Information Center, publisher of the Journal, received 
     a Federal ``Hammer'' award for its new Information Associate 
     Program.
       Then, a disturbing development. Just a few week ago, in a 
     letter dated January 2, our Library Program Service was 
     notified that the Journal had been ``privatized.'' Ownership 
     was transferred from the National Cancer Institute to Oxford 
     University Press--USA, Inc. The letter said: ``Under the 
     terms of a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 
     signed by the two organizations, the name of the publication 
     will be retained, and Oxford will assume all responsibility 
     for printing the Journal and will hold copyright to the 
     Journal's content.''
       The letter went on to explain that ``because the Journal is 
     no longer a publication of the U.S. Government, copies of the 
     Journal and JNCI Monographs will not be provided to the 
     Depository Library Program nor will sale copies be available 
     at the GPO bookstore.'' The new price, from Oxford, is $120 
     for an individual and $150 for an institution.
       The last paragraph in this brief letter said: ``We 
     appreciate the service the Depository Library Program has 
     provided in disseminating the Journal and JNCI Monographs for 
     many years.''
       Looking back, I do not regret that we at GPO invested our 
     resources in promoting the Cancer Journal in the late 1980s. 
     Nor do I regret assisting in the transfer of subscribers to 
     the Information Associates Program in 1993. But I do regret 
     the loss of this valuable resource to American citizens 
     through the depository library program in 1997.
       I have here the November 20 issue of the Journal which I 
     purchased from the main GPO Bookstore. Maybe this last, 
     public domain issue has some historical value.
       Looking through the Journal, a number of questions come to 
     mind. I note that the masthead lists some 26 staff members.
       I wonder if the editorial and news staff is still being 
     paid by the American taxpayer, but working for the Oxford 
     University Press? I wonder if the Oxford Press is sharing 
     revenues from the new, higher subscription rate with the 
     National Cancer Institute? I wonder if copyright will prevent 
     a librarian from sending a copy of an article to another 
     librarian?
       I have no way of knowing the answers to these questions--
     because the details of the Cooperative Research and 
     Development Agreement are not public information, according 
     to NCI legal counsel.
       Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. There are 
     other recent examples of information gathered by government 
     employees disappearing from the public domain--for a price. I 
     worry that these cases will become precedents and the 
     precedents will set an irreversible trend.
       I want to make it clear that I do not question the motives 
     or goals of the agency publishers who take this course. They 
     are doing what they feel is right in a new environment which 
     calls for cutting costs and generating revenues. They are 
     seeking to preserve valuable information.
       But what if this new trend drives future Federal Government 
     Information Policy? Since the founding of our nation, the 
     cornerstone of information policy in the United States has 
     been the principle of universal access to Federal 
     information. This principle is being set aside without 
     many of the usual checks and balances in our democratic 
     society: Without any high level policy debate, without 
     clear rules, without thought to unintended consequences, 
     and often without full public disclosure of the 
     negotiations and agreements.
       Is all Federal information with sufficient demand going to 
     be sent to market? If so, we should think about what that 
     means.
       Does it mean that a Government agency may sell its name as 
     well as its information?
       Does it mean that a wide array of private sector publishers 
     will no longer have access to the information to add value 
     and redistribute it to many different markets in different 
     products?
       Does it mean the public consumer must pay two or three 
     times as much, or more, for the same information?
       Does it mean that agency publishers will focus their 
     attention on more popular, marketable information and 
     eliminate other, perhaps more significant but less marketable 
     information?
       Does it mean that programs authorized by Congress will 
     begin to move away from public needs, to focus instead on 
     market needs never contemplated by our elected 
     representatives?
       Does it mean Government employees working at taxpayer 
     expense to support the information requirements of private 
     firms? And isn't that corporate welfare?
       And what if the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 
     now owned by the Oxford University Press, does not meet the 
     profit goals of the new owner? Does it mean that instead of a 
     ``Hammer'' award, there will be the ``axe'' usually awarded 
     sub-par performers in the market place?
       Who represents the public in a Bottom-line Information Era? 
     What is to prevent our nation's bridge to the 21st Century 
     from turning into a toll bridge for Government information?
       In 1989, the late Office of Technology Assessment, may it 
     rest in peace, declared that ``congressional action is 
     urgently needed to resolve Federal information issues and to 
     set the direction of Federal activities for years to come.'' 
     Now, eight years later, there is some talk of legislation to 
     update Federal Information Policy to the Electronic Era.
       The critical issues at stake today are preservation of 
     official information, public access, Government 
     accountability, and an informed electorate. Americans should 
     not pass up this opportunity to define their own information 
     future.
       Those best positioned to know the value and power of 
     information should take the lead. It is not an easy issue for 
     the media because it lacks the essential elements of hot 
     news. It is more significant than sensational.
       It is not an easy issue for politicians because there is no 
     visible crisis and framing sound policy seldom delivers 
     votes.
       So it may be up to those among us who by nature are 
     reluctant to get out front. Remember those riveting lines of 
     Yeats: ``The best lack all conviction, While the worst are 
     full of passionate intensity.'' Let's not let that happen.
       Before it is too late, let the debate begin.
                                  ____

                                                    Journal of the


                                    National Cancer Institute,

                                                  January 2, 1997.
     Ms. Robin Haun-Mohamed,
     Chief, Library Program Service,
     U.S. Government Printing Office (SLLA), Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Haun-Mohamed: As you know, the Journal of the 
     National Cancer Institute has been privatized, and effective 
     January 1, 1997, ownership of the Journal will be transferred 
     from the National Cancer Institute to Oxford University 
     Press-USA, Inc. Under the terms of a Cooperative Research and 
     Development Agreement signed by the two organizations, the 
     name of the publication will be retained, and Oxford will 
     assume all responsibility for printing the Journal and will 
     hold copyright to the Journal's content.
       Because the Journal is no longer a publication of the U.S. 
     Government, copies of the Journal and JNCI Monographs will 
     not be provided to the Depository Library Program nor will 
     sale copies be available at the GPO bookstore. Nonprofit 
     organizations, however, will be able to subscribe to the 
     Journal at reduced rates.
       For more information on subscriptions to the Journal, call 
     1-800-852-7323 or 919-677-0977.
       We appreciate the service the Depository Library Program 
     has provided in disseminating the Journal and JNCI Monographs 
     for many years.
           Sincerely,
                                                Julianne Chappell,
      Chief, Scientific Publications Branch, International Cancer 
     Information Center.

                          ____________________