formerly known as the Infobank), OCLC, and BRS (Bibliographic Retrieval Services) data bases was provided to more than 50 key staff members in Research Services. These staff members are now using these information resources to the extent that available funds allow, and are prepared to train remaining staff in the department if funding for this purpose is increased.

Access to on-line data provides instant access to the most current information which is not available if the Library were to depend only on printed indexing and abstracting services and provides it cost effectively. This progressive increase is an attempt to provide these resources and services which are often unique and, for this department, to offer services that appropriately approximate the levels in other parts of the Library. Estimates of the cost for data base subscriptions in fiscal 1984, fiscal 1985, and fiscal 1986 are difficult to project because of the number of variables including availability and growing coverage of the data base and the demand. The trend of the cost increases in data base subscription has been 10 percent. The growing workload estimates are more difficult to predict because of the variables discussed; however, this growth is likely to be in the 15-30 percent range.

Preservation of Library Materials

Question: If the diethyl zinc process proves feasible for preservation of large numbers of books, what numbers of books is it reasonable to expect to treat in this manner annually, at what cost, and how soon?

Answer: The $350,000 in the fiscal 1983 request will achieve treatment of books and process development for the diethyl zinc deacidification process. Process development will consist of the design and fitting of new equipment, automation studies, plant design specifications and refitting the chamber after the deacidification runs. In addition, the Library intends to achieve deacidification for between 40,000 to 50,000 volumes in the Library's collection as part of these activities. The 1983 program will focus on process development, on proving the method as a routine procedure at the Library of Congress, and on deacidifying new American monographs.

The number of items in the general collections to be deacidified in the future is not easily answered. It is feasible to develop ranges of numbers that might apply to incoming material and existing collections. If all incoming monographs were to be deacidified, as many as 300,000 volumes would require treatment. If only American imprints were selected for treatment, the figure would be about 100,000. Selection will be made on the basis of the suitability of particular technologies to particular materials. A preliminary estimate of a maximum program would be in the range of 100,000 to 200,000 per annum.

The problem of retrospective material is not as well defined; however, clearly this technology should not be applied to material that is already brittle. The number of books that could benefit from mass deacidification could number in the millions. Volumes would have to be chosen and deacidified over a 15 to 20 year period.

A fully operational program might cost one to two million dollars per year at current dollar value.

The implementation of a design and construction program for a local deacidification facility is being planned for 1984 in order to have an operational plant by fall 1985.

Question: Is there any hope of the publishing industry changing to a more stable paper, so that deterioration wouldn't be a problem?

Answer: The production of alkaline paper is increasing, and publishers are more routinely printing their books on this paper. It is true that printing on alkaline paper will solve a portion of the continuing build-up of acid paper books in library collections. However, many library materials from American and foreign sources will continue to come to the Library of Congress on acid paper and will need to be preserved by other means.

Question: Last year you were requesting funds for a major expansion of your film preservation program. I see no mention of the program in this year's justification. Where do you now stand with regard to the program?

Answer: The motion picture film preservation program of converting motion pictures on nitrate base film onto safety film continues to be a high priority for the Library. On September 30, 1981, a new Library of Congress nitrate processing laboratory opened on the grounds of the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, where the Library has maintained its principal nitrate film vaults since 1969. In fiscal 1982, the new laboratory began production in this new facility. With some additional operational experience, the Library will be better able to formulate a realistic and efficient acceleration of the nitrate conversion program, which may require renewal of such a request in the future.

Central Support Services

Question: You have requested 13 new positions for police. What is the current police force for the Library? How much external patrolling of the Library grounds is done?

Answer: The current Library Special Police Force totals 162.

Currently there are no patrols by the Library Special Police outside Library buildings. Library Special Police posts located outside Library buildings are as follows:

1. One officer assigned to the Library parking area on East Capitol Street from 7-7:30 a.m., Monday through Friday. 2. One officer assigned to the West Front area of the Jefferson Building from 7 a.m. 3 p.m., Monday through Friday.

3. One officer presently assigned to the East parking area, Jefferson Building from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday.

American Folklife Center

Question: You indicate that you plan to spend $15,200 on American Folklife Center postage in 1983. Your current budget is $4,200.

Your justification implies that the main reason for the increase is your failure to properly estimate costs in the past. Why have you had such trouble in determining the Center's postage costs?

Answer: In the past the Library's postage charges have been based on two one-week samplings each year. The dates of these samplings are dictated by the U. S. Postal Service. The volume of mail processed during these sampling periods may vary from one year to the next one thereby causing variations in the costs. It is the Library's practice to base its postage budget request on the volume determined by the samplings of the most recent year (in the case of the fiscal 1983 request, this is fiscal 1981) priced at the rates in effect at the time of the request. The American Folklife Center, being a fairly young organization, is experiencing sizeable increases in its postage costs because requests for information and copies of publications are being received in larger volumes than expected as the activities of the Center become more widely known.

The funding increase requested for the Center is a combination of variations in the samples, larger increases in volume than originally anticipated, and a 33 percent rate increase experienced last year. The Library's recent conversion to a metered mailing system will eliminate the variations caused by the timing of the sampling periods. As the Center becomes more established, the projections of volume generated by requests for information and publications will settle into a more predictable pattern.

Salaries and Expenses, Copyright Office

Question: What is the actual cost of registering a copyright? What is the current fee? When was the fee increased? Is there any current attempt to bring fees in line with the costs of registering copyrights, and maintaining the system?

Answer: The average cost of registering a claim for copyright ranges from $16.00 to $28.00 depending on the extent of service provided.

The current fee to register a claim for copyright is $10.00.

The fee schedule was last increased from $6.00 to $10.00 as a result of the omnibus revision of the copyright law which went into effect on January 1, 1978.

There have been discussions within the Copyright Office, the Library, and the copyright community regarding a fee increase but no legislation has been proffered as yet.

Salaries and Expenses, Congressional Research Service

Question: CBO adopted a policy at its inception of not responding to requests of individual members, except for on-the-shelf items. The Comptroller General indicates that he personally reviews all requests for new starts, to insure they are within GAO's area of competence. What is CRS' policy on new starts? Would you undertake all requests if the money was there?

Answer: Among the legislative support agencies, CRS has a unique mandate in that it is required by law to assist all committees and Members of Congress, both in legislative and constituent work (see 2 U.S.C. 166(d)). In carrying out these responsibilities,

our

all

CRS engages in careful screening to ensure, first, that requests which are inappropriate for the Service are not undertaken, and second, that those inquiries which we do undertake are handled in the most effective and efficient manner. Over the years, oversight committees have developed guidelines under which we are not to undertake certain types of requests; among these are: inquiries by a Member for personal or political information about another Member (unless the latter's written permission has been obtained); questions that are purely partisan in nature or relate to campaign activities; constituent requests requiring original research; all requests dealing with casework; and extensive clipping services or purely clerical tasks. Once a request is accepted, every effort is made, where practicable, to respond with previously prepared materials and at the minimum cost necessary to meet the requestor's needs. In the case of proposed major research projects, the Office of Research, Analysis and Multidisciplinary Programs undertakes a review to ensure that the new study would not be duplicative of work already performed, and coordinates with the other legislative support agencies (in part through the Research Notification System) to avoid any unnecessary overlap. Moreover, the Service will negotiate with requestors to limit the scope and cost of proposed projects which would require the commitment of a disproportionate share of our resources. As the Director has indicated in his testimony, recent budgetary constraints have forced the Service to reject or severely curtail a number of important and clearly appropriate research projects that would have been carried out if adequate funds had been available. On the other hand, regardless of the funds available, CRS would, of course, not respond to requests which were inappropriate under our congressional guidelines, nor would we undertake duplicative projects.

Question: It appears from the budget justification materials that CRS is requesting all of the non-personal services increases recommended by the House last year, but not granted in the final appropriations, plus further increases this year. Is this correct?

Answer: Yes. In Fiscal Year 1982, the Congressional Research Service requested $705,800 in various non-personal services allotments to cover the increased costs of maintaining current services. Most of this amount represented recovery of actual increases already experienced. The Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1982 provided only $4,600 of that amount. Therefore, we are requesting, as part of our Fiscal Year 1983 Current Level request, $553,200, which is the amount the House recommended in its report on the Fiscal Year 1982 request. The remaining non-personal Current Level increases, totalling $743,918, cover the additional cost increases experienced or announced since the Fiscal Year 1982 request was made. Thus, the total non-personal services Current Level increase requested in Fiscal Year 1983 is $1,297,118.

Question: Last year you requested $456,000 for 29 temporary positions. Apparently you were able to fund 27 of those positions in Fiscal Year 1982. This year you are proposing to budget $942,900 for 56 temporary positions. Do you anticipate a continuing increase in temporary positions over the next few years?

Answer: The Congressional Research Service has effectively utilized temporary employees since 1961 when Congress first appropriated funds for this purpose. In that year we had $25,000 for "less than permanent" hiring, which was increased to $39,000 in

Fiscal Year 1972. An increase of $200,000 was approved in Fiscal Year 1976 to enable CRS to employ additional experts on a "when actually employed" basis and temporary staff during peak workloads. In Fiscal Year 1978 an additional $75,000 was provided for this purpose. Other increases simply reflect the increased rate of pay for the same number of individuals. The current base funding, $452,900, supports 27 full-time equivalent positions compensated at approximately the GS-7 level. As indicated, $192,500 of the increase requested is to fund eleven Research Assistants to Senior Specialists, providing lower level support for our most senior analysts, as recommended by the House Commission on Information and Facilities and the Commission on the Operation of the Senate. The remaining $297,500 will permit us to hire 18 full-time equivalent, GS-7 library technicians, to assist in preparing InfoPacks and responding to the increasing number of requests which can be efficiently handled with prepared materials. The extent to which temporaries will be utilized in future years will depend upon the size and nature of our workload and the Service's judgment as to the most effective and efficient combination of staff type and level to handle that workload.

Question: Last year you requested no increase in permanent positions, despite a nine percent increase in your 1980 workload. This year you are proposing an increase of 31 permanent positions in addition to your temporaries. Why have you requested such a substantial permanent position increase this year as contrasted with last year, when you requested no further positions despite a comparable workload increase?

Answer: In our "General Statement" introducing the Fiscal Year 1982 request, we said:

In fiscal 1980, CRS workload increased 9 percent. Reference workload, which represents about two-thirds of our requests, increased 11 percent. Similar increases are being experienced thus far in fiscal 1981. We intend to absorb this increased workload with on-board staff and some additional resources allocated in such a way as to increase the Service's productivity. Such experiments as the Information Distribution Center, a sort of information supermarket where Hill staff can select needed publications on a "do it yourself" basis, have shown how modest dollar investments in innovative programs can pay off in personnel savings.

Strengthening of the Information Distribution Center concept and introduction of additional prepackaged materials in the form of InfoPacks enabled us to absorb some of that increased workload. We are continuing to enhance our ability to handle reference and given to congressional staff at seminars and institutes, and through such prepared products as Reference Briefs and Research Guides. While such innovations can help absorb some of the increased workload, there have been significant increases in requests requiring analytical responses. In addition, 19 of the 31 positions requested in Fiscal Year 1983 arę actually positions previously approved and funded by Congress. The ability to develop new products to answer congressional requests and to track issues and anticipate the kinds of requests we will get depends entirely on having an adequate staff both in the reference and research areas to maintain continued coverage of issues of concern to Congress.

Question: Among the tasks you cite as justifications for the 11 Policy Analysis and Research positions you are seeking are