MATERIALS REFORMATTING PROGRAM

Positions = 0, $1,245,279.-For archival purposes as well as for service to researchers, involves the reformatting (primarily microfilming) of subscriptions and special materials in the Library's custodial divisions.

DETERIORATING PHOTONEGATIVE PROJECT

Positions = 4, $698,061.-Involves (1) making copy preservation interpositives of some of the most important photodocumentation of America and the world's political, social and architectural history and geography, (2) physically organizing, marking, housing and cataloging the negatives, and (3) making electronic surrogates of the images so that they can be served to researchers.

Question. For the record, indicate the plans for the deacidification project over the next fiscal year.

Answer. During the next three months, we plan to complete the R&D effort on the DEZ process and to receive the contracted evaluation report on the Bookkeeper process.

DEZ RFP for Demonstration Runs. If we reach a favorable conclusion in the DEZ R&D effort, we plan to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) by the end of June for limited-production services (up to 50,000 books per year), as outlined in the earlier Action Plan; this would require Congressional approval. These limited production runs would begin in October and run through fiscal year 1995.

DEZ Full-production Facility Options. If there are no acceptable responses to the RFP, Congress and the Library will need to consider other options, such as the company owned/company operated, government owned/company operated, and government owned/government operated options that have been previously discussed for building a full-production facility.

Conclusion of Bookkeeper Evaluation. Results from the Bookkeeper evaluation process are expected to be reached by May and depend upon the results of: (a) the report that will be submitted to the Library by consultants in Pittsburgh, (b) laboratory tests on material treated by the Bookkeeper process that are being conducted by an independent lab in Atlanta, and (c) comments from EPA concerning environmental and related issues about the Bookkeeper process.

Bookkeeper R&D. If this initiative demonstrates that the Bookkeeper process can meet the Library's basic preservation requirements but that some aesthetic or technical issues need to be resolved, the Library may request Congressional approval to conduct an R&D effort with Bookkeeper to resolve any outstanding issues. This would require a contract to have Bookkeeper threat disposable library books during the R&D initiative.

Bookkeeper Demonstration Contract. Assuming the efficacy of the Bookkeeper process and the resolution in the R&D process of any issues of concern to the Library, we would then request approval to award a demonstration contract and treat several thousand volumes in a 9 month to one year period. The Library would explore company owned/company operated, government owned/company operated, and government owned/government operated options with Bookkeeper so we would be prepared to proceed with a production procurement at the end of the demonstration period.

Dutch and Canadian Studies. The Library will also continue to consult with Dutch and Canadian officials concerning the progress and findings of ongoing, comparative studies of mass deacidification processes that are being sponsored by their governments.

CATALOGING DISTRIBUTION SERVICE

Mr. FAZIO. For cataloging distribution services, there is a request. for an increase-maybe a third of it not reimbursed by sales receipts. I am trying to think in terms of what may be new this year to bring up. I don't think I can.

Mr. CURRAN. It is all offset. There is no increase in the appropriation that is not offset by the sales income in the Catalog Distribution Service.

Mr. FAZIO. Quickly looking at this, I thought we were getting reimbursed to the tune of $8 million on the $11 million plus budget. Mr. CURRAN. Pardon me. I meant the increase. You are speaking to the 3.3 million that we are not reimbursed by the customer. Ev

erything we sell is fully reimbursed. The 3 millions that are not reimbursed are for products used by the Library of Congress. We supply cataloging tools for the Library of Congress as well as for public customers.

Mr. FAZIO. That is impossible to offset obviously.

Mr. CURRAN. The public is not paying the Library of Congress costs. They are kept separate.

Mr. FAZIO. Good point. I have some questions for the record on the Cataloging Distribution Service.

[The questions and responses follow:]

Question. Who are the primary buyers of the catalog data? Explain the operations of the so-called library utilities and how they utilize the catalog data created by LOC.

Response. In 1993, the Cataloging Distribution Service's active customer base included more than 34,000 mailing addresses in the United States and abroad. CDS customers represent all segments of the information community; 79% are domestic and 21% are international customers. The primary buyers are college and university libraries (30%) and profit and not-for-profit organizations (26%), including bibliographic utilities.

According to The Librarian's Thesaurus, bibliographic utilities "provide assistance for the member libraries' day-to-day operations. Examples . . . include the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), the Western Library Network (WLN), and various regional library networks. Typical services supplied . . . include provision of cataloging records, interlibrary loan communications, and various printing and production services." (p. 141, ALA, 1990) The cataloging services provided by these utilities normally include bibliographic data from the Library of Congress, but often include members' cataloging data as well. The Library of Congress, because of its vast collections and highly trained cataloging staff, is by far the largest single source for high quality cataloging records in the United States. Many libraries use the Library's records from their utilities so that they do not need to create original cataloging records for their collections.

Question. For the record, indicate the number and types of customers for these cataloging sales and the sales to each. Identify the library "utilities" separately on this tabulation.

Response. In fiscal 1993, the following types of customers purchased cataloging products:

139 of these customers (111 mailing addresses) are "utilities." In 1993, these utilities purchased $835,056 in cataloging products, 12.5% of all cataloging sales.

Question. Is this the primary LOC product line that you estimate saves $336 million for the nation's libraries? Outline the components of this savings estimate.

Response. The estimated savings to the nation's libraries accrues from the Library's centralized cataloging for the nation. The estimate is based on the number of libraries in the United States and the number of books, serials and other library materials each library would need to catalog themselves if the Library's centralized cataloging records were not available. The estimated savings do not take into account the authority and standards work that the Library uniquely provides and upon which all other American libraries depend. The Cataloging Distribution Service makes the cataloging records available through the sale of bibliographic products such as the MARC distribution service.

Question. Your projected fiscal 1995 sales are $7.9 million. The library utilities (OČLC, RLIN, etc.) receive these cataloging products from you. They make additional sales of comparable products. What are their receipts?

Response. In fiscal 1993, sales of the Cataloging Distribution Service (CDS) totaled approximately $6.7 million. During that period, CDS delivered cataloging products to more than 3,700 commercial customers (both for-profit and not-for-profit), including bibliographic utilities.

The three major U.S. utilities are the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), the Research Library Information Network (RLIN) and the Western Library Network (WLN). According to OCLC's 1992/93 annual report, net service revenues for the year ending June 30, 1993 totaled $92,460,600. RLIN's net user fees for service for the year ending August 31, 1993 totaled $11,476,700. WLN's annual revenue is approximately $5 million. Not all the revenues of the utilities are generated from cataloging services.

Mr. FAZIO. Let me hit a couple of high spots on the law library.

LAW LIBRARY

Who are the typical users of the law library, and how are we meeting the need that is out there?

I am interested to know whether there aren't some opportunities here for us to reimburse ourselves, to some extent, for the services that are rendered.

Ms. PRICE. I think that we began discussing that last year

Mr. FAZIO. I don't really have any new themes. It is not a big surprise.

MS. PRICE. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is a customer of the law library under the Economy Act.

Our major users are: Congress; the Supreme Court, which you remember managed the law library from 1832-1935; and the executive agencies; the legal community; and the general public.

When we talked last year, we also mentioned the fact that one of our problems in seeking cost reimbursement is the absence of the fee-for-services legislation. We have a legal community that is willing to pay for services, but we don't have the ability to charge them in a meaningful way.

One of the things that you might be interested in-and it is not part of the written response that we will file to this question-is that we are engaged in building with other government, and especially parliamentary, libraries an indexing and abstracting service to legislation.

And because we don't have funding to expand in-house, we are going out to agencies such as the World Bank and discussing making our standards and our thesaurus the standard that will be used internationally in legislative indexing projects.

We have a team that will be going to Francophone Africa for a World Bank needs analysis later this year. The China desk is very interested in this. By joint venturing, I think there is an opportunity for us to do a lot of this enriching activity that helps us serve Congress better and provides us information on the Internet for an international group of users.

Mr. FAZIO. Do we have any major law firms using the law library?

Ms. PRICE. We do. We do less and less for them over time because we have fewer and fewer people. And we have a rigid hierarchy of clients, especially in foreign law research, which we do indepth with the foreign lawyers from 26 jurisdictions.

We do research for Congress and for the INS, which reimburses us, and the Supreme Court. And we attempt to limit everybody else to reference.

So, as law firms queue up, they get their 20 minutes of reference assistance and access to the reading room but not much more than that. We have been talking, though, to our Friends of the Law Library support group and the American Bar Association committee that oversees us, about hiring people to place in our reading room to provide service to the legal community.

Mr. FAZIO. Domestic law firms would benefit greatly if we had that service, but we obviously need help in affording it.

Ms. PRICE. And also expedited delivery, which is one of the items in the fee-for-service bill which we could do if that bill were passed. Mr. FAZIO. I have some questions for the record on the Law Library.

[The questions and responses follow:]

Question. To what extent does CRS use the Law Library for their research? Response. CRS analysts and librarians rely heavily on the Law Library's collections and its staff's expertise to answer questions, particularly in the areas of comparative law, international legal issues, and support for judicial nominations.

The American Law Division makes extensive use of the Law Library's law reviews, specialized looseleaf services and historical materials. American Law Division and Law Library staff regularly coordinate work on immigration, trade and campaign reform issues.

The Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division analysts were assisted by Law Library staff to work on issues related to extradition, tax treaties, foreign practices and law and congressional documents prior to 1970.

Examples of recent joint projects between CRS and the Law Library:

Comparison of ethics provisions of various countries and the United Statesproject involved a paper and joint briefings for Members and their staff. Analysis of mining laws of the United States and selected foreign countries. Analysis of rules governing direct foreign investment.

Comparison of foreign and domestic lobbying laws.

Briefing books on Supreme Court nominees.

Question. Can you quantify CRS usage of the Law Library?

Response. The Congressional Reference Division used the Law Library collections to answer more than 67,000 inquiries (almost 25% of the Production Team's workload). Half of these requests were needed on a "rush" basis and involved obtaining copies of law reviews, court cases, state statutes, older Congressional Record and Federal Digest materials.

CRS attorneys and paralegals also used the Law Library Reading Room collections and stacks numerous times daily for state court decisions, old serial set volumes, specialized looseleaf services, foreign laws, treaties, and law review articles. CRS staff in general attended monthly Law Library classes in American Legal Research for Congressional staff.

Question. If staffing and funding levels were to remain at current levels, what would be the effect on your timetable for reducing unprocessed arrearages?

Response. The Law Library has set its goals for an 80% arrearage reduction by the year 2000. We are now without 7 positions (4-abolished; 2-lack of funding; 1retirement), the duties of which were to assist in processing arrearages of rare book, looseleaf, and multi-language materials. The continued lack of staff would severely hamper any progress in reducing our arrearages.

Mr. FAZIO. Could Carolyn Brown talk to us about the Library bicentennial project, so I have an idea what you are planning in this regard.

LIBRARY BICENTENNIAL PROJECT

Ms. BROWN. As you know, the Library's bicentennial project is a seven-year project. We kicked it off in April with celebrations around Jefferson's birthday, a May symposium at the Library and

L

the publication Jefferson's Legacy, A Brief History of The Library of Congress.

For this fiscal year and the coming fiscal year, our emphasis, on the appropriated side, is to prepare the reopening of The Jefferson Building for the general visitor as a major part of the bicentennial

celebration.

We have these splendid buildings, which can become tools for educating the American public about the Library, about the relationship of knowledge to democracy, about the art and architecture of the building, and about what it means in American history that such a magnificent building should have been created as a treasure house for knowledge.

So that is the thrust of our activities.

We also are seeking private funds to conduct multiple programs. We want to be sure that the American public, when they walk in the doors, have a really rich, wonderful experience, that meets the expectations that they bring with them.

Mr. FAZIO. Thank you. We would like to keep in touch with your celebration as it proceeds.

We have some questions for Alan Jabbour, which we will submit.

AMERICAN FOLKLIFE CENTER

Alan, unless there was something that you have?

Mr. JABBOUR. No, sir. The day is long.

[The information follows:]

Question. Tell the Committee about the personnel changes requested in the American Folklife Center.

Response. The realignment of an American Memory position to the Center will enable the Center to increase its arrearage effort significantly in the coming years. In return, the Center proposes transferring the equivalent of one position to the Affirmative Action Office, in order to help fulfill statutory requirements regarding the Library's personnel selection process.

The Library is requesting fiscal 1995 funding at the Center's authorized ceiling of $1,120,000.

Question. What is the status of the American Folklife Center authorization? Response. On October 8, 1993, H.R.2074, to authorize appropriations for the American Folklife Center for fiscal years 1994 and 1995, was signed by the President, becoming Public Law 103–101.

Mr. FAZIO. Thank you. We appreciate both of these events, the Jefferson celebration, and the upcoming National Italian Foundation. And you are doing

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Today.

Mr. FAZIO. Today? I knew it was coming. It has been coming for quite a while, I think.

And we also have your effort to expose those this is Mr. Taylor, I had nothing to do with Italians in northern California as part of the Folklife effort.

Mr. JABBOUR. It has been a very happy project and a very successful one, sir.

And if I may mention one anecdote.

Mr. FAZIO. There are many happy fellows in the Napa Valley. Mr. JABBOUR. Congressman Reed of Rhode Island came to see the exhibit on the Italian Americans in the West, and he was so excited that he immediately persuaded a museum in his community in Providence to bring the exhibit there.