NEWS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY:
JUNE 1995

Table of Contents

  1. FY96 GPO Budget Hearings Highlights
  2. Census Bureau Update
  3. Dan O'Mahony on Recent Legislative Developments
  4. U.S. House Votes to Downsize Public Information Systems
  5. ALA/GODORT Legislative Alert
  6. The Depository Library Program Crisis : Another Viewpoint
  7. Purdue University Provides GPO ACCESS over the World Wide Web
  8. UCSD Provides GPO ACCESS VIA the Web
  9. More GPO ACCESS Info
  10. U.S. Congressional Votes Information


(1) FY96 GPO Budget Hearings Highlights

Public Printer Michael DiMario presented his FY96 budget request to the House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee on February 22. The request for the Depository Library Program portion of the GPO budget was a reduction of approximately $2.4 million, or 13.4 percent, from the amount approved for FY95. It includes a request for $2.2 million for online access provided to depository libraries by the GPO Access service, and $13.3 million for the production of paper, microfiche, and CD-ROM publications.

While testifying for the GPO budget request on behalf of ALA, ARL, and AALL, ALA President-elect Betty Turock was asked by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Ron Packard (R-CA) which she would choose if given a choice of receiving electronic information via the Library of Congress and other agencies, or receiving hard copy. Turock responded that the electronic and hard copies are not mutually exclusive. A variety of formats are needed to meet the needs of users. Not all depository libraries are equipped to receive electronic information and that not all people can use these formats.

Packard said that paying for the transition was a real dilemma for Congress. "We can't do both. Depository libraries may have to make a choice." Public assistance may be available to provide equipment to help depositories upgrade because this would save the government money over the long run. He can see the day when information will flow online from the government and Congress. The questions are how long this will be in coming, and how to save money.


(2) Census Bureau Update By Lars Johanson:

THE CENSUS BUREAU AND THE INTERNET.

For several months now the Census Bureau has distributed data and other information via the Internet. Users can access our material through Gopher (address: gopher.census.gov), File Transfer Protocol (address: ftp.census.gov), and the World Wide Web (URL: http://www.census.gov/) Telnet access is also allowed for the Census-Bureau of Economic Analysis Economic Bulletin Board (telnet: cenbbs.census.gov).

If you have not accessed our home page lately, you will notice next time that we are redesigning our home page. This home page will lead you to a wide range of demographic, economic, and small area data; product information (including on-line ordering); press releases; research papers; geographic data; and custom data extract capability.

Within the demographic menu you can lookup 1990 Census summary data at Census and University of California Lawrence-Berkeley servers. This online lookup allows interactive data retrieval. The user can also extract data files. You will also find historical and current population estimates for the nation, states, counties, and places as well as population projections. The popular Statistical Briefs and We, the American series are also available in Postscript format. Among the new demographic material are charts and historical data from the Bureau's annual income and poverty reports.

The economic area provides key economic indicators such as monthly retail sales and current business and industry information. As an example of the riches in one subject alone, let's look at the foreign trade section. Here you will find the monthly press releases on exports and imports, the Schedule B Commodity Classification codes (with a search engine), instructions on how to fill out the Shipper's Export Declaration, ordering information for all foreign trade products and a list of contacts for further information. You can find similar riches in other economic areas of the Bureau's Internet menu.

Other popular sections are the profiles and rankings from the Statistical Abstract and the County and City Data Book, county business data from the County Business Patterns annual reports, and descriptions from the 1992 Economic Census. We also provide listings of our Internet addresses, key telephone contacts, and tutorials and sample files from TIGER '92 and TIGER '94.

THE CENSUS BUREAU AND PRINTED REPORTS.

Since the Census Bureau is now offering speedier access to statistics via the Internet, it is also reconsidering the amount of information released in printed reports. The Governments Division recently decided to replace most printed reports with Fact Sheets for two primary reasons. One is a desire to shorten the processing time between collection and public release and the other is a need to reduce printing costs. When the Bureau releases in the future a particular government finance or employment set on the Internet, it will simultaneously issue a separate printed fact sheet summarizing findings from the dataset. This fact sheet will also be on the Internet. The fact sheets will provide information on how to access the data on the Internet, as well as how to get the data for those who do not have access to the Internet. This includes an offer by the Governments Division to produce on demand printed output of any material in its data base. After data are released for all states, the Governments division plans to release a CD-ROM with the full data file and possibly some page images and historical data.

This follows a recent change in the Current Industrial Reports series. The Bureau discontinued several months ago the printing of monthly and quarterly reports. They are accessible online and by FAX (through a 900 number or by subscription). With the various Current Industrial Reports series, however, an annual publication does compile the electronically-released information.

Some astute observers of the bureau's Current Population Reports may have also observed reductions in the number of reports and the amount of mateiral released in those printed reports. Staff members in the Population Division are considering changes in the mix of paper products and electronic data releases but they have not made any final decisions.

Similar reevaluations of the balance of printed and electronic releases are underway for the 2000 Decennial Census. The Census Bureau will develop and implement a plan and system for data access and dissemination focusing on the decennial census but with the ability to accommjodate other data sets having geogrphic detail, like those produced from the Economic and Agriculture Censuses. A design and implementation team will develop this vision into a complete proposal defining the main features of the system, including a scenario of how users would access the system, how data would be delivered, and a timeline for implementation. Some of the principles under which the system will be designed and developed including the following:

  • The system will provide direct access to a limited number of data summaries, to public use microdata samples, and to a process for specifying special tabulations. It will be accessible to the widest possible array of users through the Internet and all available intermediaires, including libraries and universities.

  • There will be limited standard, prepackaged data summaries, and no standard printed reports except those few profile reports necessary to show appreciation to the public for its cooperation. All reports, files, etc. will be rapidly prepared on demand.

  • All data sources with comparable levels of geographic detail will eventually be integrated into the system (e.g., economic census files, decennial census files, population estimates files).

    As this overview indicates, change is quickly occurring at the Census Bureau. However, we continue to value the role that depository libraries have played in disseminating our data and look forward to hearing from you about what information you need and in what formats.

    Source: Speech made at the Federal Depository Library Conference, Arlington, Va., April 12, 1995, as reported by Sheila McGarr, Library Programs Service, Government Printing Office, GOVDOC-L, April 18, 1995.


    (3) Dan O'Mahony on Recent Legislative Developments

    Attached are some comments by Dan O'Mahony, Government Documents Coordinator, Brown University Libraryand incoming Chair of the Depository Library Council, regarding recent legislative proposals affecting GPO and the Federal Depository Library Program shared over the Colorado Government Publications Discussion List recently.

    According to O'Mahony, "things seem to be changing so quickly these days that this may all be obsolete by now. It's impossible to cover everything, but here goes....

    As you know, a number of proposals and bills have been floating around that would alter the current structure of how Federal government information is disseminated. Some proposals attempt to cover only specific parts of the overall process, while others take a broader approach. The key issues being addressed include:

    A. GPO's Fate,
    B. the JCP's Future,
    C. the role of the FDLP, and
    D. the formats for distributing government information.

    A. GPO's Fate

    The Government Printing Office has been under attack for more than two years now, with everyone (Congress, OMB, National Performance Review, etc.) looking at ways to reduce, reinvent, and otherwise reform government. While the rhetoric is focused on principles such as cutting waste in government and preserving constitutional separation of powers, the real issue is politics. For a variety of reasons (some real, some perceptual, some downright misinformation), GPO seems to be on a lot of people's "hot list". Depsite reducing its labor force by more than one-half over the last decade, despite the fact that they already contact 80 percent of government printing to the private sector (and the remaining printing is either specifically required by Congress or are special publications), and despite the fact that the most cost-effective way to include publications in the FDLP is through centralized printing and procurement, many members of the House seem intent on eliminating GPO. GPO has the largest number of unionized labor in the Federal government, and some see that as one of the motivations for downsizing or eliminating the agency. Intense lobbying from the printing industry also has been a factor. Further, the Legislative and Executive branches at times appear to be in a "bidding war" of who can cut the most. Eliminating GPO or moving it to the Executive branch at least LOOKS like they're doing something, even if in the long run it may cost more. Finally, many of the new members of Congress seem to be caught up in a "change for change's sake" mentality.

    While the House has taken "a slash and burn" approach, the Senate appears to be much more cautious. Even many Senate Republicans are supporting GPO. This has caused some interesting in-fighting among party members. The Senate was the major force behind the GPO Access law (PL 103-40) for online dissemination of government information. The new Republican leadership in the House wants to move away from GPO and apparently away from the House Information System (HIS) operation. They seem to have aligned themselves with the Library of Congress, moving mountains in record time to bring up the LC Thomas system over Christmas recess, without even informing the Senate members of the Joint Committee on the Library.

    The latest news I heard this past week is that there soon will be two hearings relating to GPO. First, appropriations hearings will take place sometime in mid-May. Second, there will be a hearing on June 6 that apparently will address some of the proposals to reform GPO (i.e., the Dunn bill, the Klug resolution, and probably a new version of H.R. 3400). Some people were beginning to think that now that the "rush" of the first 100 days was over, Congress may now take a slower approach to these issues (possibly delaying any real action to September or October). I guess much of that will depend on what happens at the June 6 hearing.

    B. The Future of the JCP

    The June hearing will be held by the Joint Commitee on Printing. Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA) chairs the JCP, and he has made it clear that he wants to downsize or eliminate GPO, as well as do away with the Joint Committee on Printing. If JCP were to be eliminated, its oversight functions would theoretically be transferred to the parent committees (House Oversight and Senate Rules and Administration committee), while some of the enforcement powers might be transferred to the Public Printer. JCP has already been severely cut, losing something like fourteen staff positions. The loss of a JCP and a focus for government information issues would make it more difficult to lobby Congress regarding depository concerns. Moreover, without a joint committee, it could exacerbate the mixed messzages coming from the House and the Senate.

    C. The Role of the FDLP

    So where does all of this leave the Federal Depository Library Program? Well, some of the proposals would move it out of GPO and place it in the Library of Congress. This plan has been universally rejected by everyone but the Speaker of the House and his supporters. The Library of Congress, reaffirming a study they did last year on this issue, says that they don't want the program; they see it mostly as a "distribution" program and not something within the mission and scope of LC. The GPO obviously doesn't want to lose the program. And many others who have looked at the issue recognize that, for physical formats, there are tremendous cost savings and efficiencies in linking production and distribution. Separating the two would not only increase costs, but would increase the likelihood of fugitive documents.

    Things, however, are obviously different in the electronic environment. Electronic information dissemination is extremely decentralized, as just about every agency has its own Web site, etc. GPO is working with Council to try to map out what the FDLP will look like in an increasingly online environment. In their presentation at Philadelphia to depository library directors, GPO said that if libraries do not meet basic technical requirements (including Internet connection) within three years, they will be in non-compliance with the program. Council is working on revising the Depository Library Guidelines and including service guidelines for electronic online, on-demand "depository" information. Things like the GPO Pathfinder project and the electronic storage facility are examples of the kinds of services and the role of the FDLP will have have to take on in order to remain relevant in the electronic world.

    In addition to Council, other efforts (by ALA and the continuing work from the Chicago Conference) continue to examine the overall structure and direction of the FDLP. Two meetings were recently held in Washington at the Georgetown Law School Library (in April and again last week), where representatives from the major library associations got together to try to come to concensus about some of these issues. A "fact sheet" was developed -- an update from the Chicago Conference's mission and goal statements -- as a mechanism for measuring any proposal for restructuring the FDLP. The hope is that they can all coordinate their testimony and speak as a unified voice at the upcoming hearings.

    D. The Formats for Distributing Government Information

    Another major concern being voiced during the Library Legislative Day was the rush to electronic information as a means to cut costs. Little or no attention is being paid to the usability of information formats, or the "unfunded mandate-like" costs associated with electronic dissemination, or the issues of technological literacy and equity of access. Some of the proposals in the House assume that everything is or can be digitized in very little time. One of the messages for Library Legislative Day was to remind Congress that paper is still important. Of the 65,000 depository titles distributed last year, for example, only 300 were in electronic format. Not to mention the 150 years worth of print collections in libraries across the country. While electronic information has vast potential for increasing access and cutting costs, there needs to be a reasonable and balanced assessment of usability and a recognition that for many publications, paper is still the preferred format."

    Source: Timothy Byrne, COGOPUB-L, May 22, 1995.


    (4) U.S. House Votes to Downsize
    Public Information Systems Again

    The U.S. House of Representatives voted down an amendment to the FY 1996 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (H.R. 1854) offered by Rep. Bill Orton (D-UT)--by more than a 3 to 1 margin--that would have transferred $7 million appropriate for the Botanical Gardens Conservatory Renovation program to the Office of the Superintendent of Documents "salareis and expenses" acount. The amendment was strongly opposed by Rep. Bill thomas (R-CA) as a wasteful adherence tooutdated printed publlications formats at a time when electronic publishing is available to reduce costs and the speed of disseminating public information. Supporters of the amendment, including Reps. Major R. Owens (D-NY) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD), strongly supported the amendment as a necessary measure to maintain a vital program during the transition period to electronic information systems, which they claim many libraries are not presently prepared to fully utilize.

    The House also approved--by a vote of 293 to 129--an amendment to the Appropriations Act offered by Reps. Scott Klug (R-WI) and Pat Roberts (R-KS) which would lower the cap included in the bill on full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) at the Government Printing Office by 350 (from 3900 to 3550).

    The vote in the House will accelerate attempts by Speaker Newt Gingritch and his supporters to downsize public information systems and radically transform existing systems to electronic technologies, without regard for the well documented lack of capacity of the depository library system and private citizens to obtain affordable access to such technologies which are used primarily by those with greater wealth than most Americans possess. The action taken by the House today will weaken the GPO and DLP, and open the gates for increased privatization of government information.

    Source: Vigdor Schreibman, FINS Special Report, June 22, 1995.


    (5) ALA/Godort Legislative Alert;
    Legislative Branch Appropriations FY 1996;
    Cuts to the Federal Depository Library Program

    What happened:

    On June 22, the House agreed to a major policy change in the way in which the American public obtains government information produced at taxpayer expense. In passing H.R. 1854, the Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY96, the House voted to slash in half the appropriation that supports the Depository Library Program--from $32 million to $16 million. This appropriation supports the production and distribution of paper and microfiche publications to depositories, the nearly 1,400 Congressionally designated libraries that provide no-fee public access to government information. In a major change to current policy, mandated in Title 44 for more than a century, agencies will be required to reimburse GPO for the cost of printing, binding, and distributing paper and microfiche publications to depositories.

    Impact:

    The current system provides an incentive for agencies to print through the Government Printing Office (GPO), thereby providing that publications enter the depository distribution system and receive GPO cataloging, as well as access and preservation in depositories located in nearly all Congressional districts. With agencies under severe financial constraints, the additional expense of adding the costs of the depository library copies to their regular print runs will discourage agencies from producing publications through GPO. This change will result in a drastic reduction in the number of printed documents produced by agencies, thereby lessening public access to much-needed government information. Agencies will continue to shirk their responsibilities to disseminate non-GPO-printed agency information and the number of fugitive publications--those which escape the Depository Library Program, will increase enormously. Important materials, such as technical reports, statistical data and other information will be lost to the depository system. Additionally, costs to libraries to identify and acquire publications will increase tremendously.

    The development of GPO Access, which now provides 24-hour non-fee access to depository libraries and gateways to the Congressional Record, Federal Register, bills, U.S. Code and Public Laws of the 104th Congress, is in jeopardy. Congress required that GPO access be funded by cost savings from GPO's distribution of publications. With the 50% budget cut, GPO will no longer be able to support and expand GPO Access.

    What happened:

    The House Appropriations Committee report (H.R. 104-146) says that requiring publishing agencies to pay for depository publications will "create a market-like incentive to find ways to reduce cost which very likely will result in more cost-effective conversions to electronic format, exactly the direction in which federal information resources management should move."

    Impact:

    Distributing most government information in electronic formats exclusively does not meet the needs of many of the public users of government information, nor is all information most appropriately used in electronic formats. Nearly two-thirds of constituents do not have the equipment or expertise to use information in electronic formats. Others do not have the physical ability. This Congressional mandate is undertaken prematurely in order to gain cost savings without the benefit of proven electronic products or of fully assessing the effect that a hasty migration to electronic formats will have on public access to information. Further, the costs of printing the information distributed electronically wil be transferred to libraries and users--an unfunded mandate.

    What happened:

    H.R. 1854 also eliminates the funding for constituent copies and by-law distribution of the Congressional Record, and the free distribution of copies of bills, reports, and other documents to non-Congressional recipients (other than to federal depository libraries).

    Impact:

    80 percent of the constituent copies of the Congressional Record go to public schools, hospitals, and non-profit libraries which will not be able to afford a print subscription to the Record and which do not have appropriate equipment to access the Record electronically. Additionally, the elimination of free distribution of bills, reports, and other public documents reduces the ability of constituents to review and comment on proposed legislation.

    What happened:

    Key Congressional publications--the bound Congressional Record and Serial Set--will be produced in CD-ROM formats only. Production of the bound editions will cease in October.

    As the primary historical record of the activities and public policy of Congress, it is extremely important to ensure that the Record and Serial Set be available in formats that will endure. Not only is the archivability of CD-ROM in question, the hasty transition to electronic formats for these important works will result in lack of access to Congressional records for a significant period of time. Congressional planning for implementation of this is inadequate. No suitable CD-ROM replacement has been developed, produced, or tested in advance of discontinuance of the print product.

    What happens next:

    Members of the Senate will consider the legislative branch appropriation soon, probably within the next two weeks and will be under strong constraints to approve the cuts made by the House.

    What you can do--within the next week!

    1) Contact members of the Senate Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee, asking them to restore the funds cut by the House of Representatives from the Superintendent of Documents Salaries and Expenses appropriation for FY 96, providing the $30.3 million requested by the Public Printer. Urge the Senators to refuse to restructure the Depository Library Program by using the appropriations process to change the law governing the program without full and complete hearings, and to restore a reasonable number of constituent copies of congressional publications. Senators on the Legislative Branch Subcommittee are: Connie Mack (R-FL); Robert Bennett (R-UT); Jim Jeffords (R-VT); Patty Murray (D-WA); and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).

    2) If your Senator is on the full Appropriations Committee chaired by Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR), ask him or her to urge their colleagues to take the actions described above on your behalf.

    3) During the July 4th home district period, invite your Senators to visit your depository library. Show them how people use information in a variety of formats and the costs and constraints involved in making the transition to electronic dissemination and retrieval of government information. Tell what would be involved for your library to assume the government's responsibility to produce hard copies of government publications.

    Document Passed Out at ALA/GODORT Federal Documents Task Force Meeting, June 23, 1995.


    (6) The Depository Library Program : Another Viewpoint

    Periodically, GOVDOC-L carries messages on potential or purported threats to the Depository Library Program viability from ongoing congressional committee appropriation efforts. It is true that apparent provisions in current legislation may have a detrimental effect on our present operations as depository libraries. Effort is needed to point out such threats to relevant federal policymakers.

    What's troubling about these "action alerts" and similar documents, though, is their utter obliviousness to ongoing political reality. Unfortunately, significant numbers of depository librarians continue clinging to the illusory belief that there can be a comprehensively funded depository library program in a political and economic climate of budgetary constraints and at least partial reduction in the size of the federal government. This absense of realism is most vividly demonstrated in the "action alert" call for restoration of full funding for GPO Depository Operations which is a distinctly laudable objective under ideal circumstances.

    The depository community must understand that the American people expressed an unequivocal desire for less governmental involvement and intrusion in their lives in last November's congressional elections. It's true this sentiment may harm the depository library program and diminish public access to government information. However, instead of longing for unattainable full funding levels for GPO and the Depository Library Program, it is incumbent on those of us in the depository community to trim our operational ideals and visions and adapt to ongoing political, economic, and technological realities.

    As one of many recipients of federal funding, depository libraries must accept the reality and share the sacrifice of real budgetary reductions if the United Staes is to achieve the desirable goal of balancing the federal budget and improving its national economic performance and international economic competitiveness. If we feel that enhanced funding of depository libraries is a laudable public policy objective, we need to be prepared to specify those federal programs whose funding should be reduced or eliminated in order to retain what we feel is suitable fiscal support for our objectives. Such augmented appropriation requests must be constructed on empirically and politically justifiable grounds to legislators instead of on traditional bromides such as government information producing an informed citizenry which derives from idealistic sentimentality instead of documentary proof.

    We must also recognize that we have not, and probably never will, convince elected officials and public opinion of the benefits we believe are produced by citizen access to government information. Concern over the inequity of citizen access to electronic government information genuinely motivates many in the depository community. It must be recognized that such inequity is an inherent characteristic of a free market economy along with divergent individual and organizational abilities and there is little we can do to rectify this as individuals or members of professional organizations.

    It's time for depository librarians to jettison their 1960's derived absolutist ideallism of unlimited and free comprehensive access to government information and adapt to the pragmatic and resource constrained realities and opportunities of the 1990's and beyond....

    Each of us must work individually within our respective institutions and collaboratively through consortia and associations using our resources, initiative, and multiple talents to meet our constituents government information needs with courtesy and professionalism. It's essential for us as depository librarians to defend our interests by dealing with political and economic realities as they are instead of as they want them to be by clinging to the illusion of a restoration of unlimited governmental appropriations to provide comprehensive citizen access to government information.

    Source: Bert Chapman, Government Publications Coordinator, Purdue University, "NAAN Action Alert and the Politics of Fantasy", GOVDOC-L, June 15, 1995.


    (7) Purdue University Provides GPO Access Over the WWW

    Computer specialists at the Purdue University Libraries have made GPO Access available over the World Wide Web, the first site to do so, according to Carl E. Snow, network access librarian. As a result, government information users can now access the Federal Register and other GPO Access databases via this interface.

    Previously, free electronic access to these government data bases was possible in only two ways. You could walk in and use special computers on site in U.S. depository libraries, which are limited to 10 simultaneous users each. Or you could access the data bases remotely by using a computer to go through electronic "gateways" at 14 of these depository libraries.

    Purdue University, a fellow Big Ten and CIC institution, is the 15th depository library to become an electronic gateway.

    Cary Kerr, network coordinator for the Purdue Libraries, created an electronic gateway through the web to the government document data bases by modifying a computer program developed by Nordic WAIS/World Wide Web Project. Snow says Purdue plans to make the modified web version of the Nordic software available to other depository libraries.

    Ten people at a time will be able to log into the GPO Access databases via Purdue by typing in the following URL address: [http://thorplus.lib.purdue.edu/gpo/].

    For more information, contact Cary Kerr (cary@thorplus.lib.purdue.eud) or Carl Snow (carl@thorplus.lib.purdue.edu).

    Source: GOVDOC-L, May 22, 1995.


    (8) UCSD Provides GPO Access over the WWW

    The University of California, San Diego, Social Sciences and Humanities Library, has installed a second world wide web interface to GPO Access.

    "GPO Gate" is a "gateway" to GPO Access and can be reached at [http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/gpo].

    "Our goal is to create a WWW interface that would allow the end user to successfully use the database with relatively little outside help/explanation. For this reason we have created several different ways of searching including:

    • a page that allows users to search multiple GPO databases simultaneously and create powerful WAIS searches without using complex WAIS syntax. [http://ssdc.ucsd.edu:80/gpo/multi.html]

    • pages that allow users to easily search fields of those databases allowing field seaching. (Federal Register, Congressional Record, GAO Reports) For example, the CR [http://ssdc.ucsd.edu:80/gpo/power.html]

    • a page that allows users to use full WAIS query language to construct their own searches of multiple databases. [http://ssdc.ucsd.edu:80/gpo/power.html]

    In addition, all searches may be limited to words in title.

    Marsha Fanshier, Jim Jacobs, and Patricia Cruse created GPO Gate and welcome your comments. (mfanshier@ucsd.edu, jajacobs@ucsd.edu, and Patricia_Cruse@UCSDLIBRARY.ucsd.edu)

    Source: Jim Jacobs, UCSD, GOVDOC-L, June 15, 1995


    (9) More GPO Access Info

    "GPO Access: Information for Depository Libraries" contains the ground rules for the Gateway Program, copies of the fax-in registration form, the model selective agreement for electronic resources, a listing of all current gateway sites, and much more!

    Every depository library received a hard copy in January 1995. Since that time, it has been in a near-continuous process of revision, and numerous copies have been e-mailed to people interested in the Gateway Program. As an e-mail file, its bulky; now over 71k of text.

    "Well, relief is in sight!", according to Gil Baldwin of the GPO Library Programs Service. It is now available via U.S. Fax Watch, mentioned elsewhere in this newsletter.

    To request a copy via this route, call U.S. Fax Watch at (202) 512- 1716. Then press choice number 4 (information on popular products and services or ordering information); press 4 again (information on popular products, GPO Access, or the Federal Bulletin Board). You will then be prompted to enter document numbers, and then your fax number.

    Ask for the following numbers if you are still interested:

    3352 - the Gateway Program and General Background (10 pages)

    3357 - Registration; Selective Housing; SWAIS or WAIS? (11 pages)

    3353 - Frequently Asked Questions (8 pages)

    3354 - Gateway Connections and Contacts (7 pages)

    Source: Gil Baldwin, GOVDOC-L, May 23, 1995.


    (10) U.S. Congressional Votes Info

    David H. Miller, Congressional Observer Publications, 1750 Sulphur Springs Road, Corvallis, OR 97330-9347, now offers House and Senate vote information electronically. Each vote contains: (1) a title for the vote, (2) a brief description explaining the vote, (3) an alphabetic list under Yea, Nay, etc. (each line contains the member's last name, party, state, district, and vote), and (4) a data summary area including such things as breakdowns by party, and leadership positions. The Vote Title file can be searched by topic to locate all votes on a certain subject. All of these files are simple DOS text files and can be used by any application program that can access text files. Cost. The cost is $10 per month per house or $100 per year per house. Votes can be purchased separately by month or house. Individual month's votes may also be purchased. Votes may be obtained daily be email or monthly on diskette. (1994 votes are also available at $75 per house).

    Educators may obtain education use permission.

    For more information, call (503) 745-7440; or send an e-mail message to .

    Source: GOVDOC-L, March 13, 1995.


    Click here to send mail to Jon Harrison