Federal Government Information Access in the Wake of 9/11

R. Sean Evans
Cline Library, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ., 86011-6022
Internet:<sean.evans@nau.edu>

Brad Vogus
Hayden Library, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ., 85287-1006
Internet:<vogus@asu.edu>

Abstract:
    Despite a rich history of federal government information access, the executive branch of the Bush administration, and Congress have embarked on an unprecedented array of policies and procedures which will have far-reaching impact on federal information access. Some of these policies can be traced to shortly after the administration came into office, but the growth of information curtailment has accelerated since the events known as collectively as 9/11 occurred. At issue clearly are the concepts involving (public) information access, and the needs to secure information that might be of use to terrorists.

Keywords: government information, terrorism, 9/11

Introduction

    The United States has had as policy open access to government produced information and data throughout its history. This openness accelerated with the transition to the Internet environment. In the normal course of things, evaluating the effects of such a shift now going on 8 years would be interesting and prudent. However, the events of September 11, 2001, thrust our nation into a protective posture, causing a rapid shift and evaluation of information access policies. The images of the events of 9/11 create a searing vision that support the huge growth of protective, anti-terrorist activities undertaken by government of the United States (at all levels) since 9/11.  Listed below are 7 road signs which are markers for changing federal information access policies. These items, and their effects are at this point quite fluid, and changing almost daily. Many of these activities below are bound to wind up under legal scrutiny, with inevitable interpretive evolution ongoing.

Federal Information Distribution History

    The one form of federal government information access that is probably best known among librarians and information specialists is the material distributed to libraries by the Government Printing Office (GPO) through the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). The history of government printing and information distribution is a lengthy one, stretching back into the early 1800s. The underlying philosophy which GPO has adopted for the dissemination of federal information can be seen early in the quote from James Madison :

"A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps, both.  Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives" (1).
    While government publications were distributed to various libraries and learned societies as early as 1813, the modern and familiar version of government information distribution system is rooted in post-Civil War American history (2). In 1869, the position of Superintendent of Documents was created within the Department of the Interior, under the Secretary of the Interior who had the authority to grant libraries depository status and distribute materials (3).  By the close of the Nineteenth century, the Monthly Catalog had begun to publish citations to the publications of the United States printed by the Government Printing Office, and by 1903, the modern Superintendent of Documents Classification system (SuDocs) came into being (4).  From 1923-1978, a number of significant events finished the creation of the modern depository library system: the ability to select against a representative list of documents (as opposed to getting all items published); the ability of Congressmen to add a depository library for their district; the addition of law schools and court libraries to the program; and the establishment of procedures for libraries to weed their collections (5). The significant event is the dramatic rise in the number of depository libraries, from just over 400 in 1895 to more than 1,200 by 1978 (6). This represents and enormous increase not only in access to federal publications, but this time frame also witnessed the expansion of the program, and the material distributed.

Modernization of the Program

    While the FDLP grew to include more libraries, and allow libraries greater freedoms in what materials they collected and kept, the introduction of new , non-paper formats came late. It was not until 1977 that microfiche was selectively used in place of paper materials, eventually replacing many paper titles entirely. The reliance upon devices to access information (in this case fiche reader printers) created a degree of controversy involving the equipment libraries would need to make such documents available to the public. This controversy was re-lived in 1989 when the first GPO-derived CD-ROM products began to appear in shipping boxes (7). The CD-ROM products created opportunities for libraries to provide public access to very large files and data sets previously unimagined. Some of the early CDs were quite good. Census CD-ROMs by example were often clear, easy to use, and allowed users to find and construct very specialized data. Other CDs were victims of their operating software, often contracted by the issuing agencies, and with little support information for libraries to access.
    In 1993, the  Government Printing Office Electronic Information Enhancement Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-40) created the foundation and funding for the creation of GPO Access, GPO's web site where official electronic versions of many publications could be located free by the public (8).  Clearly, the move to the Internet as a platform for federal government information distribution dramatically increased access of such information, even if such access occasionally was accompanied by the intervention of a librarian, or information professional.  This information shift was not a casual undertaking. GPO had to examine how the shift to electronic format for an ever increasing number of titles and data sets would impact fundamental and historic goals of : "equitable, no-fee, local public access"; "improved access"; "formats appropriate for the needs of users"; how to "enable the public to locate government information regardless of format"; "ensure timely current public access, and permanent, future public access"; and finally "ensure that the program is cost-effective" (9).  Currently GPO indicates that more than 60% of the material available to libraries by the FDLP are available online. Many more titles and databases are available outside of the FDLP and GPO directly from individual agency web sites.

Shift in Direction from the Bush Administration and Congress

    To some extent, information policies shift and change from one administration to the next. Some of this is due to the political philosophy of the administration in office being played out; philosophies unique to the Public Printer ; and the inevitable ongoing tension between the Legislative and Executive branches of government. Listed below are 7 significant events and policy actions (in chronological order) which will shape the public information access policy of the Bush administration, especially since 9/11.  Currently, these items may only indicate trends which we may see over the remainder of this administration. Events are occurring and shifting very quickly, and may not indicate with any certainty the future of government information distribution.
 
 

Freedom of Information Act Administration policy (Department of Justice , October 12, 2001)

    As with preceding administrations, the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.Code. § 552 [2000]), is currently undergoing a reinterpretation by the Bush Administration as seen in the memo:  "Freedom of Information Act Administration Policy" issued by Attorney General John Ashcroft to the heads of Executive departments and agencies dated October 12, 2001. This memo essentially sets the environment into which Freedom of Information Act generated requests are to be accepted. As such, the key change in the way the Bush Administration will respond to FOIA requests is as follows:
 
"I encourage your agency to carefully consider the protection of all such values and interests when making disclosure determinations under the FOIA. Any discretionary decision by your agency to disclose information protected under the FOIA should be made only after full and deliberate consideration of the institutional, commercial, and personal privacy interests that could be implicated by disclosure of the information.

     In making these decisions, you should consult with the Department of Justice's Office of Information and Privacy when significant FOIA issues arise, as well as with our Civil Division on FOIA litigation matters. When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records." (10)
 

    Ashcroft in this memo is calling for a greater degree of deliberation on the part of federal agencies before granting information under FOIA requests, and is announcing that the full weight of the Justice Department will be available to defend the agencies' decisions should they elect to not fill FOIA requests. Given the political landscape after 9/11, such announcements certainly reflect a desire to provide a higher degree of security to sensitive information, but just as likely it also indicates to a certain extent that agencies are being encouraged to be unresponsive to FOIA requests, even to the extent of going to court. The document while framed in the current wartime national security environment, makes specific  broad mention of the need for agency heads to be mindful of "institutional, commercial, and personal privacy interests" before granting FOIA requests (11).  This particular action will likely have little direct effect upon government information accessed via the FDLP, but could have a far greater if not chilling effect upon information normally obtained via FOIA by researchers and scholars.
    Since the issuance of the FOIA memo, Senator Patrick Leahy has requested the Government Accounting Office examine and assess the effect the new policy will have on FOIA requests (12). It would seem certain that lawsuits filed on behalf of media outlets will occur.
 
 

GPO, and the removal of select documents issues (October 12, 2001)

    The first tangible loss of a federal publication due to post- 9/11 actions was a U.S.G.S. CD-ROM entitled: Source-Area Characteristics of Large Public Surface-Water Supplies in the Conterminous United States: An Information Resource for Source-Water Assessment, 1999 U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 99-248).  In and of itself, the request from GPO for a specific title for removal from FDLP library collections is not an entirely unusual situation. The GPO on occasion finds that an agency authorized distribution of material in error, triggering a withdrawal notice from GPO (13). Given the type of information typically dealt with in federal publications, the fact that thus far only one tangible document has been recalled may be a positive sign.  It is as yet unknown what the effect of the White House's desire to see agencies reclassify their publications will have (see: Action to Safeguard Information Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction and Other Sensitive Documents Related to Homeland Security below). On the electronic side of the equation, GPO has reported that somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 titles are now no longer accessible due to security concerns of the issuing agency (14). Of interest to librarians is the communications created between depository libraries, U.S.G.S. and the Superintendent of Documents, Francis J. Buckley, jr. regarding the agencies' authority to change the status of already distributed documents, and GPO's authority to demand the withdrawal or destruction of such titles (15). The situation was recently further complicated by a request on the part of the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha District for the return of 5 titles on September 21, 2001. While not specified as a homeland defensive request, it is unusual for agencies to skirt GPO in requesting document withdrawal (and return of the titles to the issuing agency). There are several issues for libraries regarding these recalled or withdrawn titles. The first is that the titles live on in databases and indexes like the Monthly Catalog. At some point, a user may find such a title, and find that they are unable to access it. The second issue is that as information professionals, there are members of the library community who would prefer to not pull such material from their shelves and OPACs. Likewise there are others who would like to lock away or otherwise dispose of material they feel is potentially dangerous. GPO rules and regulations are quite clear. Federal publications remain the property of the federal government. The government therefore has the authority to have libraries remove and make unavailable titles they so deem, and the government likewise can control that which a library may want to remove from their collection and provide public access to (16).
 
 

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) (P.L. 107-56)  (United States Congress, October 26, 2001)

    The USA Patriot Act (P.L. 107-56) is a huge and complex piece of legislation that covers a wide array of topics. Understanding this law's impact is hampered by the fact that there were no Congressional hearings (and so various legal points were not publicly debated), and the fact that this act passed through Congress at a rate reflective of the effects of 9/11. From a library point of view, the USA Patriot Act provides for enhanced surveillance on e-mail and Internet activity, as well as providing law enforcement with greater access to patron records. The American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) listed the following 5 summary concerns:
 


    These areas expand upon current legal tradition. For example according to the AALL, "business" records Under P.L. 107-56 is now expanded include patron use records in libraries, and the inclusion of copyright violation and fraud into the general realm of terrorism. This will considerably widen the number of individuals who may face legal action as "terrorists" under P.L. 107-56. The American Library Association issued a  "Library Community Statement on Proposed Anti-Terrorism Measures"  (at:  http://www.ala.org/washoff/terrorism.pdf) that details the concerns of the library community. Some of these concerns are technical in nature: how to track individual public computer use by user for example; or proposals to add law enforcement software to library PCs given the current goals to provide modern access to the Internet; other concerns involve the lowering of legal standards which will permit law enforcement access to patron and circulation records without Judicial review (18).
 
 

Executive Order 13233 Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act (White House November 1, 2001)

    E.O. 13233 is perhaps the single greatest restrictive action on this list. Prior to E.O. 13233, Presidential papers were made available out of the National Archives after 12 years as prescribed by the 1978 Presidential Records Act (19).  Under E.O. 13233, Presidential Papers may be withheld from public scrutiny if either the President under whose administration the material was generated or the current sitting President disagree with their release (20). This effectively means that any past, current or future President will have the ability to keep Presidential papers away from public examination and research for the indefinite future. The Justice Department has already signaled that it will support the administration on FOIA requests, further enhancing the probability that such information will  likely not be disclosed (see the section on Freedom of Information Act Administration policy, above). As NARA archival products are not part of the FDLP, the effect of E.O. 13233 really is more an impact on historical or political researchers and journalists who would tend to utilize former Presidential material.
    At this point, one bill (H. R. 4187  entitled "(An Act) To amend chapter 22 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as  the Presidential Records Act, to establish procedures for the consideration of claims of constitutionally based privilege against disclosure of Presidential records") was proposed during the 107th Congress. H.R. 4187 wad designed to curtail the ability of a President (or designate) to single-handedly block access to Presidential Papers scheduled for release by the National Archives by placing a 20 day review period in place wherein only a Judge could prevent disclosure of the information requested, or alter the 20 day period for further analysis by modifying the current Title 44, chapter 22 of the U.S. Code. The act also states that once passed, E.O. 13233 "shall have no force or effect" (21). Scheduled for mark up during the week of May 22, 2002 the bill was on hold pending White House pressure on Republican  bill sponsors to withdraw their support (22). With the closure of the 107th Congress, and the Republican majority in the incoming 108th, it would seem unlikely that any action will be taken on this issue in the near future.
 
 

Action to Safeguard Information Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction and Other Sensitive Documents Related to Homeland Security  (White House, March 19, 2002)

    This memo outlines three goals: First, to extend when appropriate, the length of time material remains classified from ten to twenty five years; Second, to classify previously unclassified, non-public material when appropriate; Third, to create a new category of material called "Sensitive but Unclassified Information".  The goal overall is to prevent public access to material which might "reveal information that would assist in the development or use of weapons of mass destruction" (23). Clearly in the last category many government technical reports could be interpreted as providing information which could be used for such information gathering either directly, or in combination with other publications and data sets. As the 90 days period of review is ongoing, it is as yet unknown what the specific effects of this memo will be on existing, public documents. The memo directs agencies to review the FOIA memo of the Justice Department from October 19, 2001 for clarity. Given the tremendous degree of openness from agencies like the Central Intelligence over the last decade on materials pertaining to the Cold War for example, or the Department of Energy in making available thousands of full-text reports through its Information Bridge,  such documentary reclassification will certainly slow the release of much historical information and lead potentially to the recall, destruction and loss of access to many titles already in libraries and data sets. (24).
 
 

OMB Memorandum M-02-07 Procurement of Printing and Duplicating through the Government Printing Office (White House, May 3, 2002)

    This is late breaking news. In early May, the Executive Office of Management and Budget issued a memo (# M-02-07) calling for the end of the mandate that the Executive branch agencies use the Government Printing Office (a Congressional agency) for their print needs. The memo states: "The time has come for the Executive Branch to liberate its agencies from a monopoly that unfairly penalizes both taxpayers and efficient would-be competitors" (25). Specifically OMB M-02-07 calls for Executive branch agencies to select printing and duplicating services based upon best quality, cost and time of delivery. This infers that agencies will begin to bid out regular documentary printing to commercial print houses and GPO.  Exceptions to the bidding process are the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Image and Mapping Agency, National Security Agency, or any other printing subject to the rubric of national security restrictions (26). Agencies are required to produce an annual report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget on the overall cost of their printing operations, detailing work produced by GPO and commercial contractors. The memo further mandates changes to the U.S. Code and Code of Federal regulations to accommodate these policy changes. This implies at the moment that these changes are not compliant with current law and regulation and will likely be subject to lawsuit. While clearly not security related, this memo could have far-reaching effects on the ability of the GPO to collect and distribute information created by the government with taxpayer derived funds.
    In many regards this is very reminiscent of  a similar situation from the 1870s. In 1876 the House of Representatives completed an exhaustive study on the cost effectiveness of the GPO. This study seems to have been largely driven by the former publisher of the Congressional Globe, Rives and Bailey. The minority report claimed huge excesses on the part of the GPO, but the report was not adopted, although the printer's wages were cut the following year (27).
    In a lengthy response to OMB M-02-07, GPO faults that memo on several points. OMB M-02-07 would likely have the following negative impacts:
 

    Since the release of OMB M-02-07, the White House has forwarded an interesting argument regarding the violation of the U.S. Code and CFR that the memo promotes. The logic forwarded seems to revolve around the fact that as the use of GPO is probably unconstitutional, they are advocating the process of bidding out print jobs to private print firms, a sort of declaration of action prior to the determination of constitutionality, usurping the role of Congress and the Court. OMB has moved forward specifically ignoring Congress with plans to publish the 2004 FY Federal Budget outside of the GPO(29).

Commercialization and Material shifting at Departments of Energy and Education

    Earlier last year the Department of Energy began circulating their plan to shut down PubSCIENCE. PubSCIENCE was born in October 1999 with the sentiment that  "PubSCIENCE allows users to search across thousands of bibliographic citations from multiple journal sources to identify information of interest. It focuses on the physical sciences and other energy related disciplines and is modeled after the National Institutes of Health's PubMed"(30). PubSCIENCE forged agreements with several commercial providers so that users could gain access directly to the web versions of the periodicals found in PubSCIENCE(31). In August 2002, DOE announced it was considering closing down PubSCIENCE because "because private-sector companies such as Scirus and Infotrieve offer comparable services"(32). DOE called for short commentary period ending on September 9th. Despite overwhelming support (240 of 247 comments) for PubSCIENCE, DOE has shut down its database instead linking to private provider fee-based databases Introtrieve and Scirus(33). Emboldened by  successfully lobbying the Bush White House Congress on shutting down PubSCIENCE,  David LeDuc, public policy director at SIIA [Software & Information Industry Association] has been quoted at saying: "We are looking into a couple of other databases and agencies", "One is law-related, the other has to do with agriculture"(34).

Conclusion

    Clearly, the events of 9/11 have caused the government of the United States as a whole to think about information access and related policies. It is obvious that federal information, whether that made available via the FDLP, agency web sites, or FOIA requests has the potential for use against the United States by foreign or domestic terrorist groups or individuals, and as such the federal government re-evaluating access and distribution policies makes a degree of sense.  The problem with such a philosophy is making the determination as to what exactly constitutes harmful information.  In other words, while few would argue the merits of curtailing certain forms of information, the uncertainty as to just what sort of publications and Web sites will constitute "dangerous" information leaves the impacts of these actions unpredictable. Additionally, as it appears the administration seems to indicate this "War on Terrorism" may go on without end, these policies and actions seemingly have no effective end date. Many of the actions listed above could have the potential of reaching far beyond limiting potentially harmful information to damaging the freedom of information access overall.  Compounding this situation are ill conceived notions such as those outlined in OMB M-02-07 which may privatize print government material and make the distribution of federal information in the context of the FDLP much more difficult, and likely result in the loss of public access to that information, especially as the White House begins implementation of OMB M-02-07 with the publication of the U.S. Budget going out for bid.  Additionally, the administration's support of commercial fee-based information providers over the free products produced by agencies would seem to indicate that other databases like Argricola, ERIC, or PubMed could come under similar attacks by SIIA, or other self-interested bodies, further reducing public access to information.
    Clearly, the Internet is also a huge consideration. Material which might become classified, or "Sensitive but Unclassified", will not automatically become unavailable simply because the links are removed, or even if the file is removed. Likewise, the fact that much more than single titles can disappear with web site redactions is very troubling. Quoting Francis Buckley jr. :
"Security concerns also have great implications in the online environment. Government information on the web in electronic format is widely accessible, heretofore considered a good thing, but now it is being reconsidered." (35)

Notes:
1. Depository Library Council., Fulfilling Madison's Vision: The Federal Depository Library Program., Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996, p. vii
2.  McGarr, Sheila M. "Snapshots of the Federal Depository Library Program", http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/history/snapshot.html
3. ibid.
4. ibid.
5. "Keeping America Informed Federal Depository Library Program", http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pr/keepam.html
6. McGarr, Sheila M. "Snapshots of the Federal Depository Library Program",  http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/history/snapshot.html
7. Depository Library Council., Fulfilling Madison's Vision: The Federal Depository Library Program., Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996, pp.xi-xii.
8. "About GPO Access", http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/whatis.html.
9. I have lifted these goal statements from GPO's Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a more Electronic Federal Depository Library Program, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996, pp.10-23.). Clearly there are many large issues discussed within a short space which do not need great discussion here. The document however does make for an interesting look into the issues in information distribution as the GPO perceived them at the time.
10. Memorandum for Heads of all Federal Departments and Agencies.  at: http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2001foiapost19.htm
11. Halstuk, Martin E, "In Review: The Threat to Freedom of Information.", Columbia Journalism Review, Jan/Feb2002, Vol. 40, no. 5, p 8.
12. Leahy letter to the GAO at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2002/leahy-gao.html
13. In fact these recalls occur for a variety of reasons: faulty data; printing errors; "security" breaches, and other factors.
14. This was found in a statement by Francis Buckley in an article entitled: "Security, State Plans, Promotion, and Sales Remarks by Francis J. Buckley, Jr.", Administrative Notes., Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 1-6. see also: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/adnotes/ad050502.html#1
15. see: Statement on Request to Withdraw  USGS Source-water CD-ROM from  Depository Libraries at: http://ww1.access.gpo.gov/GPOAccess/public-affairs/news/02news04.html
16. For more information on the control of FDLP material see: Chapter 4, "Maintenance"., Instructions to Depository Libraries., Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office,  2000.  at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/instructions/in_ch4.html
17.  Baish, Mary Alice., "Update on Anti-terrorism Legislation", Washington Affairs Online, American Association of Law Libraries, Dateline: October 4, 2001. http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash/lu122001.html
18. American Library Association., Library Community Statement on Proposed Anti-Terrorism Measures, at: http://www.ala.org/washoff/terrorism.pdf
19. The change in policy from the 1978 Presidential Records Act to E.O. 13233 is well described by Steven L. Hensen, president of the Society of American Archivists, in an article entitled "The President's Papers Are the People's Business", Washington Post, Sunday, December 16, 2001; Page B01.
20. Executive Order 13233--Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=fr05no01-104.pdf
21. H. R. 4187  entitled "(An Act) To amend chapter 22 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as  the Presidential Records Act, to establish procedures for the consideration of claims of constitutionally based privilege against disclosure of Presidential records. at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2002/hr4187.html
22. Craig, Bruce., " Horn Bill Mark-up "ON HOLD" Due to White House Pressure"., NCC Washington Update, Vol. 8, #20, May 21, 2002
23. Action to Safeguard Information Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction and Other Sensitive Documents Related to Homeland Security  at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/wh031902.html
24. To see some of these titles, go to the CIA's Center for Intelligence Studies at: http://www.odci.gov/csi/pubs.html
25. Office of Management and Budget., Procurement of Printing and Duplicating through the Government Printing Office., May 3, 2002, at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m02-07.pdf
26. ibid
27. Harrison, James L. (ed.)., 100 GPO Years 1861-1961: A History of United States Public Printing., Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961. pp. 52-3.
28. Sherman, Andrew M., "Response from Andrew M. Sherman, Director - Office of Congressional and
 Public Affairs, GPO "., What They Think., May 15, 2002 at: http://members.whattheythink.com/home/gpo.cfm
29. Friel,Brian., " OMB ignores Congress, may bypass printing office". GovExec.Com Daily Briefing, October 30, 2002 http://207.27.3.29/dailyfed/1002/103002b1.htm
30. Parks, Wanda., "PubScience- New Desktop Access to Journals". Energy Science News., November/December 1999, Volume 9, Number 6  http://www.pnl.gov/energyscience/11-99/art2.htm
31. Publishers included: American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, Blackwell Science, Cambridge University Press, MIT Press, Springer-Verlag and others. Notess, Greg R., "PubScience: Evolution or devolution". EContent, February 2000.
32.  Ojala, Marydee., "PubSCIENCE Joins the Endangered Species List". NewsBreaks and Conference Reports, August 19, 2002. http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb020819-2.htm
33. ALA Office of Government Relations., "Government Information-What's New?" Accesses 11/26/02 http://www.ala.org/washoff/governmentinfo.html . See the OSTI link here: http://www.osti.gov/journal_sources.html
34.   Matthews, William., "More sites targeted for shutdown". FCW.COM., Nov. 13, 2002  http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2002/1111/web-science-11-13-02.asp
35. Buckley ,Francis.,  "Security, State Plans, Promotion, and Sales Remarks by Francis J. Buckley, Jr.", Administrative Notes., Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 1-6. http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/adnotes/ad050502.html#1

Appendix:
    Listed below are a few background documents and websites:

A. Lost Information
"Access to Government Information Post September 11th"., OMB Watch, 2/01/02  at: http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/213/1/1/
    This page is regularly updated to include more websites as they are taken down. See the section entitled: Information removed from agency web sites.

B. Past FOIA Policy
October 1993 Freedom of Information Act Memo from the Department of Justice outlining  Clinton Administration policy at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/reno.html


Bibliography:

"About GPO Access", http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/whatis.html (5/09/02)

American Library Association., Library Community Statement on Proposed Anti-Terrorism Measures, http://www.ala.org/washoff/terrorism.pdf
(5/15/02)

ALA Office of Government Relations., "Government Information-What's New?" Accesses 11/26/02 http://www.ala.org/washoff/governmentinfo.html

Ashcroft, John., Memorandum for Heads of all Federal Departments and Agencies.  posted 10/15/01 at: http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2001foiapost19.htm (5/15/02)

Buckley ,Francis.,  "Security, State Plans, Promotion, and Sales Remarks by Francis J. Buckley, Jr.", Administrative Notes., Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 1-6. http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/adnotes/ad050502.html#1 (5/10/02)

Craig, Bruce., " Horn Bill Mark-up "ON HOLD" Due to White House Pressure"., NCC Washington Update, Vol. 8, #20, May 21, 2002

Depository Library Council., Fulfilling Madison's Vision: The Federal Depository Library Program., Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996, 107 pp.

Drake, Miriam A., "Is the GPO Endangered?", Information Today, September 2002, Vol. 19 Issue 8, p 1.

Drake, Mariam A., "Cost Cutting or Access Control: OMB Dismantling GPO?", Searcher, October 2002, Vol. 10 Issue 9, p 65.

Friel,Brian., " OMB ignores Congress, may bypass printing office". GovExec.Com Daily Briefing, October 30, 2002 http://207.27.3.29/dailyfed/1002/103002b1.htm

Halstuk, Martin E, "In Review: The Threat to Freedom of Information.", Columbia Journalism Review, Jan/Feb2002, Vol. 40, no. 5, p 8.

Harrison, James L. (ed.)., 100 GPO Years 1861-1961: A History of United States Public Printing., Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961. 164 pp.

Hensen, Steven L.,  "The President's Papers Are the People's Business", Washington Post, Sunday, December 16, 2001; p. B01.

Hughes, Robert., "Free Libraries, Free Society", American Libraries, August 2002; p. 50-2

Jobe, Margaret M., "What a Difference a Year Makes"., Library Journal Digital., May 15, 2002. http://libraryjournal.reviewsnews.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA216313   (5/28/02)

McGarr, Sheila M. "Snapshots of the Federal Depository Library Program",  http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/history/snapshot.html (5/08/02)

Matthews, William., "More sites targeted for shutdown". FCW.COM., Nov. 13, 2002  http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2002/1111/web-science-11-13-02.asp

National Archives and Records Administration, Executive Order 13233--Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act, http://www.nara.gov/nara/vision/presidential_records/eo13233.txt (5/13/02)

Nelson, Anna K. , "Now, More Than Ever, We Need to Know the History Of Our Recent Past". Academe, July 2002, Vol. 88 Issue 4, p59

Notess, Greg R., "PubScience: Evolution or devolution". EContent, February 2000.

Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, Statement on Request to Withdraw USGS Source-Water CD-ROM from Depository Libraries., Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, January 16, 2002. http://ww1.access.gpo.gov/GPOAccess/public-affairs/news/02news04.html (5/10/02)

Office of Management and Budget., Procurement of Printing and Duplicating through the Government Printing Office., May 3, 2002, at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m02-07.pdf (5/15/02)

Ojala, Marydee., "PubSCIENCE Joins the Endangered Species List". NewsBreaks and Conference Reports, August 19, 2002. http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb020819-2.htm

Parker,Laura; Kevin Johnson., "Secure often means secret Post-9/11, government stingy with information"., USA Today., May 16, 2002, p. 1A  http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020516/4116384s.htm  (5/28/02)

Parks, Wanda., "PubScience- New Desktop Access to Journals". Energy Science News., November/December 1999, Volume 9, Number 6  http://www.pnl.gov/energyscience/11-99/art2.htm

Quint, Barbara., "Documents? What Documents?", Information Today, September 2002, Vol. 19 Issue 8, p8

Reeves, Richard., "Hiding History", American Heritage, Aug/Sep2002, Vol. 53 Issue 4, p 64.

Sherman, Andrew M., "Response from Andrew M. Sherman, Director - Office of Congressional and
 Public Affairs, GPO "., What They Think., May 15, 2002 at: http://members.whattheythink.com/home/gpo.cfm (5/23/02)

U.S. Government Printing Office., Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a more Electronic Federal Depository Library Program., Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996.

SE
created 02/20/02, updated last on 03/02/04