PRESERVATION OF DETERIORATING MATERIALS

Readers come to the Library of Congress because of the vast extent of our uniquely cosmopolitan collections-a permanent record of civilization not available in any other nation in the world. These collections must be saved from deterioration if they are to serve our children and grandchildren. The Library of Congress and the whole research community face this most pressing problem, the dimensions of which we have only lately discovered. The disintegration of paper is one of the least advertised menaces to our national resources of knowledge. Paper produced since the middle of the 19th century, because of its high acid content, becomes brittle and self-destructs within about 100 years. As a result, millions of items in our Library will be useless for the next generation if we do not take immediate action. Microfilm and other preservation techniques provide an answer to some materials, but others should be preserved in their original format.

In the laboratories of the Library, we have led the way to new means to prevent or delay deterioration not only for the Library of Congress but for all the Nation's libraries. By using a diethyl zinc process developed by chemists on our preservation staff at the Library of Congress, we can remove the acid from paper and thereby stop further deterioration of library materials. We have already successfully conducted small tests on lots of 400 books at a time. This June, we will proceed with this deacidification process on a lot of 5,000 books at the Goddard Space Flight Center where the National Aeronautic's and Space Administrator will supply the technical know-how and equipment. We believe, Mr. Chairman, this can be a breakthrough for preservation in all libraries, museums, and other learned institutions. We are asking for an additional $350,000 to continue to develop this new technology which is essential to the preservation of the resources of our civilization.

We are also requesting an additional $160,000 for supplies, repair, and conservation of rare materials and $225,000 to begin a 3-year program to preserve the collection of county atlases, primary source materials for the study of local history and genealogy in every State in the Union. These provide the earliest detailed cartographic coverage of many areas of the United States.

Finally, we are requesting $400,000 to begin a 5-year acquisition program to acquire microform of the most intensely used periodicals. This will eliminate the need for costly treatment of these deteriorating materials already in our collections which have suffered from constant and heavy use, and will prove to be a measure of economy in the long

run.

GROWING WORKLOAD REQUIREMENTS

These are the largest growing workload requests and I would like to summarize the remainder. We are requesting 6 positions to improve the acquisition of material from Africa and the Middle East; 3 positions for the American Folklife Center; 13 special police for the security of the staff and collections in the Library of Congress James Madison Memorial Building; 2 positions to staff the information counter at the main

entrance of the Madison Building; and 6 positions for the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your support of the Library of Congress and urge that you approve the requests before you.

Now more than ever, our country needs the services provided by our great Library. Only by the increase and diffusion of knowledge can we find new solutions to old problems and be prepared for the myriad human, social, economic, and technical challenges which will continue to face our Nation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

INTENT TO MAINTAIN BUDGET AT 1982 LEVEL

Senator MATTINGLY. Thank you for your statement.

Many of the questions we have I will just give to you and you can return the answers in writing later.

It is the intent of the committee to once again try to hold appropriations down in the legislative branch. What we are going to try to do is hold at the fiscal year 1982 level including supplementals. What impact do you think that would have on the Library of Congress if you received the fiscal year 1982 level plus supplementals you requested to sustain you in 1983?

EFFECT ON LIBRARY OF 1982 LEVEL

Dr. BOORSTIN. I would be glad to summarize that, Mr. Chairman. It will have a very serious effect on the Library, one of the main reasons being that the resources and the raw materials of knowledge increase at a geometric rate every year, and for that reason in order to continue to provide an up-to-date survey of the state of knowledge we must increase the resources available for processing and making available and retrieving that information. I can summarize the consequences of receiving funds at the 1982 level. These are only a few of them.

First, there would be no money to pay the mandatory within-grade increases, which would be a sum equivalent to about 75 positions. We would be unable to buy approximately 44,000 books. When these materials cannot be bought currently the cost in the long run is greater because they are difficult and sometimes impossible to secure. We could not pay our postage bill. We would be unable to maintain the Madison Building properly. We would have to curtail drastically the ongoing replacement of collections. Thirty thousand volumes in need of binding would not be bound, and 11,000 books would be permanently unusable because of lack of microfilming funds. These materials deteriorate and can never be replaced once they go beyond a certain point. Then the time to process copyright registrations would be further delayed. Such delays are costly because the followup correspondence always costs money to answer questions why their request is not promptly met, and the reduction of staff would, of course, have that consequence. There has been a notable increase in the efficiency of the Copyright Office in meeting those requests, but they cannot cut back any further without serious repercussions.

Without funds for the diethyl zinc deacidification program we would be further behind in fighting the national menace in the deterioration of materials of learning. That gets worse with time. Without services to operate the Law Library and reading rooms we cannot make full use of the facilities, the consequence being, in effect, we would be losing the dividends on the enormous investment the Congress made in building the Madison Building and in furnishing it.

Finally, this is the last example I will give you, many exits and entrances in the Library buildings would have to be closed because of lack of special police.

There would be many other consequences, but this would give you a hint as to what some of the consequences would be.

Senator MATTINGLY. About the same list you had last year.

Dr. BOORSTIN. The basic developments in the world in knowledge don't change; the processes go on. We continue to accumulate books and periodicals, which is one of the main sources of the information. The process of deterioration does not decline but continues to go on with the passage of time. The building is there and we want to make more use of it.

STATUS OF MADISON BUILDING OCCUPANCY

Senator MATTINGLY. What percent of the Madison Building is occupied?

Mr. WELSH. Eighty percent.

Senator MATTINGLY. What has that done to your rental of buildings budget?

Mr.WELSH. Since we began occupying the Madison Building, our space rental budget has decreased significantly; from $6,800,000 to $2,900,000 which is the level we expect it to remain at in 1982 and 1983. The reduction represents rental space vacated at Crystal City, Massachusetts Avenue, and the Washington Navy Yard. We are, however, planning to reoccupy a part of the facility at the Navy Yard because the rent will increase dramatically for one of our units, the Federal Research Division. We plan to move that Division from a rented facility to the Navy Yard facililty which the government operates at a much cheaper rate.

COST OF PRINTING BY GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

Senator MATTINGLY. What is the total budget increase for printing? Mr. WELSH. I don't know. We would have to supply that for the record.

[The information follows:]

The total increase requested in 1983 for all printing amounts to $365,385.

SOURCES OF PRINTING

Senator MATTINGLY. Is your printing done in-house?

Mr. WELSH. Most of it is done at the Government Printing Office. We have some in-house capability.

Senator MATTINGLY. You don't know how much you spend for printing?

Mr. WELSH. I don't offhand, but I do know we have reviewed our printing the past year and have tried to reduce it.

Senator MATTINGLY. Have you gone outside to see if possibly you could get it done cheaper than you could at the Government Printing Office?

Mr. WELSH. No, sir; we have not.

Mr. CURRAN. We follow the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing. Mr. WELSH. And that is it goes to the Government Printing Office and they determine whether to do it in-house or not.

Senator MATTINGLY. Everything is mandated by law. That is the reason we are here to try to find whether things might be done cheaper somewhere else.

Dr. BOORSTIN. We would be glad to explore that.

PRINTING COSTS

Senator MATTINGLY. We are going to explore it for you. What I would like to have provided is what your printing costs are.

Mr. CURRAN. Total printing costs with the Government Printing Office?

Senator MATTINGLY. Yes; it must be significant.

Mr. WELSH. Yes, sir.

Senator MATTINGLY. It has to be if you have it printed there. They seem to have the highest printing costs of anyplace in this area.

[The information follows:]

Actual cost of printing done by the Government Printing Office, fiscal year 1981

In the salaries projection for Congressional Research Service, I notice you have an increase, something like $5.5 million, for salaries and expenses. What is that for?

Dr. BOORSTIN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Gilbert Gude, the Director of the Congressional Research Service, to answer that question? Mr. GUDE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MATTINGLY. Good morning.

Mr. GUDE. This is Ms. Susan Finsen, my Executive Officer, Senator Mattingly.

This is about the fifth year our budget has been constrained.

In other words, we have had to freeze one in six positions, and our requested salary increase this year is mainly to attempt to restore these

positions and to give the kind of subject area coverage which we feel we should give. We become stretched very thin as analysts leave. Because of the constraints on the budget we have not always been able to replace analysts and because of continued cutbacks we have not been able to give the kind of service across the board in all the subject areas the Congress needs.

ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES REQUESTED

Senator MATTINGLY. How many additional employees are you requesting?

Mr. GUDE. Thirty-one, nineteen of them to restore positions which were taken away from the Congressional Research Service in fiscal year 1981. We are asking for restoration of those.

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Senator MATTINGLY. Do you have much communication with either the chairman of the Office of Technology Assessment or the Congressional Budget Office or the General Accounting Office?

Mr. GUDE. Yes; we have communication on both a formal and informal level. The agency heads meet formally yearly, and then we have a liaison group directly under the directors or chairmen of the four agencies and they meet every several months. In addition to that, going down to a lower level, a subject area level, we have liaison meetings. For example, analysts and researchers in, say, water resources from the Office of Technology Assessment, the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Research Service, and to the extent the Congressional Budget Office might be involved in that subject area, will meet in regard to projects and ongoing work. So the liaison activity carries on at several levels.

Senator MATTINGLY. Is there any double checking?

Mr. GUDE. We meet individually. I have met with Alice Rivlin, Charlie Bowsher, and Jack Gibbons on a one-to-one basis. There are lines of communication.

Senator MATTINGLY. I know you do. Does anybody ever check on all the surveys you are doing and analyses you are doing to check on overlap of subject matters or such things?

Mr. GUDE. We have what we call the research notification system which was developed through congressional concern about overlap, and it has been continually sophisticated and upgraded. In fact, most recently, this April, we made a change in the research notification system which consists of the listing of all the major projects the four agencies are carrying on and this is used as a means of avoiding the overlap. There are occasions when we have requests for what would appear to be the same study in several of the agencies, and a requester very often says, well, we would like the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service to look at this subject. We think a variety of opinions sometimes helps rather than getting only one analysis of the subject.