troops to foreign command in UN peacekeeping operations, Senate advice and consent to Law of the Sea Convention and Chemical Weapons Convention, the relationship between theater missile defense systems and ABM Treaty, the proposed Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, the United States-North Korea nuclear agreement, Iran's purchase of nuclear power plants from Russia, and cleanup of certain of the Marshall Islands damaged by United States nuclear testing.

Losses of three senior analysts in the Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division have resulted in the loss of expertise in such active subject areas as the defense budget, United States foreign policy, the State Department, USIA, diplomacy, international terrorism, military operations, and the congressional role in foreign policy generally.

Conclusion

In summary, demand management at CRS is not a strategy to be embarked upon when resources become scarce. Rather, it is a permanent attribute of CRS operations and planning which is necessitated by its broad mandate, its large client base, and a limited budget. As the congressional workload has grown in response to the increasing scope and complexity of the issues before Congress, so too has the work of CRS. In the face of those mounting demands and decreasing resources, the Service continually looks for opportunities to increase efficiency without sacrificing quality, comprehensiveness, and accessibility. As part of this effort, CRS uses technology and the growing variety of available information formats to produce and efficiently deliver products and services that meet the needs of the Congress and that are tailored to the requirements of individual committees and Members.

CRS is now studying options for further curtailment or possible elimination of some services, primarily non-legislative in character, so that the Service can devote additional resources to its primary statutory responsibilities. For example, CRS is considering closing one of the Reference Centers that serves the House, and reducing hours of the La Follette Congressional Reading Room. The Service is considering changing the daily closing time of the remaining CRS Reference Centers in the House and Senate office buildings. The Service must also consider further limiting services to unpaid congressional interns. CRS may no longer be able to guarantee same-day responses to requests on non-legislative topics. It may also be necessary to decline many requests to present briefings for non-congressional audiences.

CRS remains dedicated to its goals of anticipating, adapting to, and responding to congressional needs in an economic and efficient manner. To do so it has had to take steps to deal with the necessity to match the services requested with the resources available for response. In spite of these demand pressures and necessary adjustments to service, CRS is organized to be readily accessible and responsive in a manner which is not reproduced elsewhere, within or outside the Legislative Branch.

COPYRIGHT OFFICE-CARP

Question. Last year the Copyright Office assumed functions formerly performed by the Copyright Royalty Tribunal and formed a new operating function called the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARP). What are the functions of CARP?

Answer. The Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARP) are convened to decide controversies in the distribution of cable, satellite carrier and DART royalties. They are also convened to adjust rates during ratemaking years for cable retransmission of broadcast signals, satellite carrier retransmission of broadcast signals, public broadcasting use of music and the visual arts, the mechanical license, and the jukebox license (should the private jukebox license expire or otherwise go out of existence).

Question. What are the costs CARP versus those of the CRT?

Answer. The last appropriated budget of the CRT was fiscal year 1994. It was $1,028,000, of which 85 percent came from the royalty funds and 15 percent came from appropriated funds.

The fiscal year 1995 Copyright Office budget for CARP is $488,499, of which 100 percent is deducted from the royalty funds. The difference is due to the fact that the parties will pay the arbitrators directly, whereas the salaries of the Commissioners of the CRT came from appropriations.

ELECTRONIC COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Question. The Library is requesting $1.5 million to create and implement a Copyright Office Electronic Copyright Management System (ECMS). In your statement, you mention that implementation of the new system will enable the Copyright Of

fice to reduce the number of employees required to process materials. Could you explain to the committee what the Electronic Copyright Management System is?

Answer. The Copyright Office Electronic Registration, Recordation, and Deposit System or CORDS is the Copyright Office's electronic registration, recordation and deposit system. Its purpose is to allow owners of copyrighted works to submit to the Copyright Office their applications and deposit materials in electronic form as well as their documents of transfers of ownership, to sign their submissions digitally using public key/private key encryption technology and to send them using Privacy Enhanced Mail via the Internet.

The Copyright Office will perform all functions on line examination, correspondence, registration, and indexing. When a work is registered, it will be placed in the Copyright Office digital repository, which will provide a means for ensuring the authenticity and integrity of it. Owners of copyrighted material may also make their works available locally, nationally or globally through the Library's Digital Library in accordance with their terms and conditions of access and use.

Question. What are the out-year costs for the system?

Answer. To implement CORDS we must have funding to move the system forward. At a minimum this requires at least $1 million in each of the next three years for hardware, software, expert advice and further research and development. During 1996 and 1997 there probably will be no net savings.

Question. When will you be able to reduce the number of employees required to process materials?

Answer. Currently, an average of 6 staff members is needed in various parts of the manual registration system to process approximately 10,000 claims. Under CORDS this figure could be reduced to approximately one to two persons per 10,000 claims. Since CORDS is a fully digital system, it will reduce the process of registration and storage of digital works from the current 17 physical steps (including 6 intermediate delivery and storage steps) to 6 purely online processes, requiring no physical resources or storage areas other than work stations and related servers. Thus, for all works registered solely through CORDS, there will be a tremendous savings in personnel.

Question. What will be the savings in FTE's and dollars?

Answer. Under CORDS, the average of 6 staff members needed to process 10,000 claims could be reduced to approximately one to two persons per 10,000 claims. Since CORDS is not yet in production, we have no experience on which to base projections of how many claims remitters will submit electronically. But, to the extent they do, there will be a savings of four FTE's for every 10,000 claims that are submitted through CORDS. The average salary in the Copyright Office is about $45,000; therefore, the savings in salaries will be close to $200,000 for every 10,000 CORDS claims out of the 600,000 submitted currently.

Furthermore, the savings will not be confined to staff costs. Because there will be no need to store and transport material, space and manual equipment requirements will correspondingly be eliminated. All that will be needed will be the workstations and related file servers.

GENERAL BUDGET

Question. Dr. Billington, the Library's total 1996 request is $383.9 million. This represents an increase of approximately $35 million, or 10.2 percent over 1995. Yours is the second largest budget among the legislative support agencies after GAO.

As you may know, the committee has a goal of achieving an overall $200 million reduction below 1995 for the Legislative Branch. If we are to achieve our goal, everyone will have to share the pain of cuts. Having said that, I recognize that the Library has been held well below the CBO baseline since fiscal year 1992. For the current year, for instance, you are funded at your 1994 program level which was already 12 percent below fiscal year 1992 in real terms.

What changes have you been required to make as a result of being held below baseline levels of funding over this period? And what further changes will be necessary if you receive no increase over your existing budget for next year?

Answer. To manage additional work while realizing staff cuts, the Library has had to reduce certain services, look to new technologies and other new initiatives, and search for additional program efficiencies. Changes that have been made include the following:

Service cutbacks.-Eliminate reading room hours in the Main Reading Room, Law Library, and five other reading rooms; eliminated Saturday morning hours in the Geography and Map and the African/Asian Reading Rooms; phased out reference service at the Performance Arts Library at the Kennedy Center; reduced the num

ber of exhibits, displays, and public tours; eliminated or suspended a number of printed publications; eliminated foreign interlibrary loans; declined future requests for the preparation of congressional office histories; eliminated a program for indexing and selling translations of scientific and technical documents; and ended the distribution of non-automated cataloging (MARC) cards.

Program efficiencies.-Implemented LC Marvel; implemented a "FAX-on-Demand" system; assigned CRS analysts and attorneys to research responsibilities in additional issue areas or to reassign to more needed areas; discontinued the receipt of surplus volumes of bound serials from other Federal agencies reducing the Federal Transfer Program by nearly 6 million items; demonstrated national leadership in cataloging by supporting a number of initiatives including developing a Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC); refined collections policy statements to eliminate lower priority acquisitions; reduced the number of supervisory positions from 637 in September 1992 to 539 in December 1994, an 18 percent decrease; privatized a number of Library functions including binding of materials, custodial cleaning, nonpolice posts, payroll processing, travel arrangements, translation services in CRS, and personal computer maintenance; effected postage cost savings and improved deliveries; introduced the Government Purchase Card; implemented an imaging-based system for Copyright registration processing to eliminate manual processing steps and the need for 300 square feet of space annually.

The changes that would be necessary for the Library to operate itself if it had to live at the existing budget for next year would be to cut back on programs in terms of reducing or changing operations in services. Some examples follow: CRS would lose another 20 analysts, in addition to over 60 lost since 1992; CRS would have to close a reference center and reduce hours for the remaining reference centers and reading rooms; the Library would approximately acquire 30,000 fewer items of foreign publications; the number of new braille and audio cassette titles available to blind and physically handicapped citizens would decrease by 10 to 20 percent; progress in reducing the Library's arrearage of unprocessed materials would slow, and we would miss our bicentennial (2000) goal by 3.6 million items; the Library's ability to preserve deteriorating collections would be reduced; the quality of reference service to the general public would deteriorate as unreplaced attrition takes place; exhibits, displays, published items, and other cultural activities that share the Library's unique collections would be further cut back; the number of cataloging products and services produced to support Library operations would be reduced to save funds that could be used to support a secondary storage facility; and a financial audit of the Library's operations would be postponed.

Question. What would be required to fund your current level of operation in the next fiscal year? By that I mean, what would it take to keep the staff you now have on board in place doing what they are now doing?

Answer. The amount needed to fund the Library of Congress current level of operation in the next fiscal year would depend on the size of the January 1996 pay raises, or between $15.6 and $22.6 million.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

STATEMENT OF JUNE E. O'NEILL, DIRECTOR

ACCOMPANIED BY:

JAMES L. BLUM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR

GAIL DEL BALZO, GENERAL COUNSEL

STANLEY L. GREIGG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

PAUL VAN DE WATER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR BUDGET ANALYSIS

POLLY E. HODGES, BUDGET AND FINANCE OFFICER

DAVID M. DELQUADRO, PERSONNEL OFFICER

MARK G. DESAUTELS, ASSISTANT FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

DANIEL F. ZIMMERMAN, CHIEF, SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH UNIT

INTRODUCTION OF ASSOCIATES

Senator MACK. The next panel is the CBO, Congressional Budget Office.

Director O'Neill, we are delighted to have you with us this after

noon.

We appreciate the opportunity to talk with you last week with respect to some of the issues pertinent to the funding of CBO in its next fiscal year. I wonder if you want to introduce your colleagues that are with you.

Dr. O'NEILL. Yes; I would like to do that. Appearing with me is Jim Blum, who is our Deputy Director.

On my right is Paul Van de Water, who is Director of the Budget Analysis Division; Gail Del Balzo, our General Counsel; Polly Hodges, our Budget Director; Stanley L. Greigg, who directs the Office of Intergovernmental Relations; and Mark Desautels, who assists Stan Greigg and does much of our press contact.

We also have Daniel Zimmerman, who is in charge of all of our computer activities, and Dave Delquadro, who is our Personnel Officer.

Senator MACK. We are delighted to have all of you with us this afternoon. We have your official statement. Did you want to go and make an opening statement, and give us a general

Dr. O'NEILL. I will make a very brief statement.

Senator MACK. All right.

Dr. O'NEILL. It is my pleasure to be here and I will submit my prepared remarks for the record. This is just by way of background. The original request that CBO submitted to this committee and to the Office of Management and Budget for fiscal year 1996 called for a flat budget, that is, no nominal increase over CBO's 1995 appropriation of $23,188,000.

bmang its request. CBO recognized the budgetary pressures Being the Congress and the need to absorb reductions in real resources in order to help meet the discretionary spending caps. To carryout the freeze. CBO had planned for considerable belt ng, some shrinkage of full-time equivalent positions, cuts in se strative expenses, and other cost-saving measures.

- have changed, however, requiring CBO to revise its 1996 bucker equest. In early 1995, the new Congress moved rapidly on is genties and passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES NEEDED

That legislation will impose important new requirements on the oral Budget Office, requirements that are impossible to Het with our existing staff or with our original request for reConsequently. CSO is requesting an additional $2.6 million and Come equivalent employees to carry out the wide range of dures demanded by the act.

ogs our revised budget request for fiscal year 1996 to 000, which is an 11-percent increase over our fiscal year the mood for additional resources was reflected in the legislation * authorizes $4.5 million for that purpose. However, g its request to only $2.6 million to fulfill this func It so dong, we are asking for the bare minimum to respond now tasks that will be required of us.

request for an additional $2.6 million assumes that our exNess stat wil absurd a substantial portion of the workload imPas by the Unfunded Mandates Act.

use the CBO staff is quite lean, this means that we will sources away from some things we have been doing for the ress and redirect them to the new work on unfunded manThat reallocation will reflect what we perceive to be the new priority assigned by the Congress to the impact of unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal jurisdictions, as well as on the private

A SIGNIFICANT NEW DIMENSION

When Bob Reischauer, my predecessor at CBO, testified before the House Appropriations Committee, he remarked that he would not be surprised if CBO found the request for an additional $2.6 million to be insufficient to fulfill congressional demands.

The provision of detailed estimates for many jurisdictions and the analysis of economic impacts for the entire private sector will add a significant new dimension to our workload. Because these are largely new responsibilities, it is extremely difficult to forecast the resource needs that will actually emerge. I agree with Dr. Reischauer that we have probably underestimated the cost of the additional work.

I also believe that we have submitted a very tight budget. The Congressional Budget Office has served the Congress very well in the past and we will continue to do so.