BNUMBER:  B-276953 
DATE:  June 6, 1997
TITLE: Bill Comments on the Government Printing Office Act of 1997,
B-276953, June 6, 1997
**********************************************************************

Subject:   Bill Comments on the Government Printing Office Act of 1997 

File:        B-276953

Date:        June 6, 1997

B-276953

June 6, 1997

The Honorable John Warner
Chairman
Committee on Rules
  and Administration
United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This responds to your letter of April 16, 1997, requesting our 
suggestions concerning a draft bill entitled the "Government Printing 
Office Act of 1997."  We commend this effort to resolve a number of 
concerns about government printing and public access to government 
information, including questions about the constitutionality of the 
current law.                                                                                

As discussed below, we support transfer of the Government Printing 
Office (GPO) to the executive branch as provided in Title II.  
However, we believe that, while the draft bill would resolve the 
constitutional separation of powers issue concerning legislative 
branch control over executive branch printing, the bill would raise an 
issue of executive branch control over printing for the judicial and 
legislative branches.  One way to resolve this potential problem would 
be to provide that the government's printing needs could be fulfilled 
elsewhere whenever it was advantageous to do so.  Ending GPO's 
monopoly over federal government printing in this manner could have 
the added benefit of enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of 
GPO's operations.       
 
We discuss below our views on two broader issues raised by the draft 
bill:  the question of control of legislative and judicial printing by 
GPO as an executive branch agency and questions about GPO's printing 
monopoly.  Also, we will be providing your staff with a separate list 
of some specific provisions that are unclear and suggested language 
changes to help clarify them where we can do so.  

Over the past several years, officials in the executive branch have 
issued a number of opinions challenging the constitutionality of the 
provisions set forth in 44 U.S.C.  sec.  501 and section 207(a) of the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1993, 
Pub. L. No. 102-392, 106 Stat. 1703, 1719 (1992), as amended by 
section 207(2) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1995, 
Pub. L. No. 103-283, 108 Stat. 1423, 1440 (1994) (set forth at and 
hereinafter referred to as 44 U.S.C.  sec.  501 note).[1]  These provisions 
require that, with limited exceptions, all federal government 
printing, be done by or through GPO.  Section 501 applies to in-house 
printing while section 501 note applies to procurement of printing 
from outside sources.

A May 1996 memorandum issued by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of 
the Department of Justice declared, to the extent 44 U.S.C.  sec.  501 and 
501 note require all executive branch printing and duplicating to be 
procured by or through the GPO, they violate constitutional principles 
of separation of powers.  The OLC found that the GPO is subject to 
congressional control, and concluded that the GPO's extensive control 
over executive branch printing is unconstitutional.  The memorandum 
also concluded that executive branch departments and agencies are not 
obligated to procure printing by or through the GPO and that there is 
little or no risk of liability or sanction to contracting officers who 
act consistently with the opinion.[2]

The 1996 memorandum raises serious questions regarding the validity 
and enforceability of 44 U.S.C.  sec. 501 and 501 note.  While no court 
has ruled on the constitutionality of these provisions, we agree with 
the sentiments expressed in your letter to us of April 16, 1997, and 
the attachments thereto, that the time may be ripe for reform of Title 
44 to resolve the long-standing constitutional concern.  
  
Title II of the bill would transfer GPO from the legislative branch to 
the executive branch while maintaining GPO's monopoly, under 44 U.S.C.  sec.  
501 and 501 note, over most printing for the executive, legislative, 
and judicial branches of the federal government.  If the bill is 
enacted, GPO, as an executive branch agency, would continue to have 
control over all congressional printing including printing of the 
Congressional Record, as well as certain printing required by the 
judiciary.  This would raise a question of the independence of the 
Congress and the Courts in controlling their own printing functions 
and activities.  

This issue was presented in a constitutional context by the Public 
Printer, 
Michael F. DiMario, in his April 24, 1997, testimony on the draft 
bill.  He stated that, "if the proposition is accepted that in order 
to be constitutional GPO must be transferred to the executive branch, 
the legislative and judicial branches will immediately be provided 
with a constitutional pretext for withdrawing their work from GPO."  
It was also raised in testimony delivered on April 24, 1997, by Judge 
Royce C. Lamberth, District Court Judge for the District of Columbia.  
Judge Lamberth, speaking as a representative of the judiciary, stated 
that re-creation of GPO as an executive branch agency, with the 
authorities set forth in the draft bill, "potentially challenges the 
judiciary's independence" and raises "issues of independence that may 
have serious impact on the production of information both for and from 
the federal courts."

This issue could be avoided if, in addition to transferring GPO to the 
executive branch, its monopoly over printing for the federal 
government is eliminated.  Ending GPO's printing monopoly would be one 
way of addressing another issue concerning GPO's operations.  In prior 
work on the printing and procuring operations of GPO, we found that 
GPO's monopoly has contributed to inefficiencies and ineffectiveness 
in its operations.  For this reason, in our 1994 report on the 
National Performance Review (NPR), we supported a recommendation that 
GPO's printing monopoly be eliminated.[3]  

In a 1990 report on GPO, we stated that, while GPO's monopoly-like 
role in providing printing services was originally created to assure 
efficiency, with the passage of time that role has been 
transformed.[4]  The monopoly perpetuates inefficiency because 
centralized control permits GPO to be insulated from market forces.  
The agency does not have the incentives to improve operations and 
processes that would ensure quality services at competitive prices.  
On the basis of limited comparisons, we found that GPO's $150 million 
of in-house printing in fiscal year 1989 might have been procured from 
commercial printers for as little as $75 million.     

In the 1990 report, we identified a number of operational problems 
that stemmed from GPO's monopoly, including costly in-house 
production, a procurement system where important quality of 
performance information was not readily available, customer service 
efforts hampered by poor communications, and weak accountability 
throughout GPO's performance management system.  While we recognized 
that these operational problems could and should be improved within 
the existing legislative structure, we recommended that GPO's role be 
reexamined.

In a 1994 report, we concluded that with the emergence of various 
electronic technologies, the framework of laws and regulations used to 
manage many aspects of government publishing had become outdated.[5]  
For example, we found that outdated definitions of printing and 
duplicating were driving federal publishing decisions rather than 
sound business practices emphasizing cost-effectiveness and customer 
service.  We stated that as Congress reviewed proposals to change the 
existing legislative framework, it might wish to consider alternative 
frameworks built on sound business practices and changing publishing 
technologies. 
   
In the 1994 report on the NPR mentioned previously, we reiterated that 
GPO's monopoly-like status contributes to inefficiencies and 
ineffectiveness.  We agreed with a recommendation made in the NPR that 
GPO's mandatory source status for executive branch agencies should be 
eliminated.  The NPR called for modification of Title 44 to remove the 
executive branch from coverage and eliminate the mandatory requirement 
to use GPO.  It anticipated that GPO would market its services to the 
executive branch at competitive prices. The NPR recognized, however, 
that in order for GPO to make a successful transition, the executive 
branch should be required for a limited period of time to use GPO to 
satisfy most of its printing needs. 

The draft proposal to transfer GPO to the executive branch provides an 
opportunity for the Congress to decide whether it should end GPO's 
monopoly over printing for all three branches of government.  Such an 
approach holds the potential of  resolving what might otherwise become 
another ongoing controversy while enhancing the efficiency and 
effectiveness of future GPO operations.
    
Finally, regardless of the ultimate determination of GPO's structure, 
we believe the nature of its activities require that GPO comply with 
sound financial management practices.  Accordingly, we recommend 
requiring GPO to comply with the financial management reforms Congress 
has enacted for 24 major executive departments and agencies by adding 
GPO to the list of executive agencies subject to the Chief Financial 
Officers Act of 1990.  This would subject GPO to the same financial 
management practices, including audited financial statements, as the 
24 major executive departments and agencies to help assure the 
issuance of complete, reliable, timely, and consistent financial 
information, and to deter fraud, waste, and abuse of Government 
resources.  Alternatively, the bill could be revised to require GPO to 
prepare annual financial statements covering all accounts and 
associated activities consistent with the requirements of section 3515 
of Title 31, United States Code and obtain an annual audit of those 
statements consistent with section 3521 of Title 31, United States 
Code.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the 
draft legislation.                                                                           

Sincerely yours,

Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel
                                
1. See, e.g., Memorandum for William H. Taft, IV, Deputy Secretary of 
Defense, from Theodore B. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of 
Legal Counsel, Re: Effect of INS v. Chadha on 44 U.S.C.  sec.   501, 
"Public Printing and Documents" (March 2, 1984);  From Red Tape to 
Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less, 
report of the National Performance Review, September 7, 1993; and 
Statement by President William J. Clinton Upon Signing the Legislative 
Branch Appropriations Act of 1995, H.R. 4454, 30 Weekly Comp. Pres. 
Doc. 1541, 1542 
(July 22,1994).

2. Memorandum for Emily C. Hewitt, General Counsel, General Services 
Administration, from Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, 
Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Government Printing Office Involvement in 
Executive Branch Printing (May 31, 1996).

3. Management Reform: Implementation of the National Performance 
Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-95-1, Dec. 5, (1994).

4. Government Printing Office: Monopoly-Like Status Contributes to 
Inefficiency and Ineffectiveness (GAO/GGD-90-107, Sept. 26, 1990).

5. Government Printing: Legal and Regulatory Framework is Outdated for 
New Technological Environment (GAO/NSIAD-94-157, April 15, 1994).