ing it, which is under the direction of the Senate. There is a House library on the House side, which by statute is under the jurisdiction of the Librarian of Congress. However, for many decades the direction has been given by the Clerk of the House. The statute provides that the personnel for the House library be appointed by the Clerk of the House. Mr. ANDREWS. And carried on your payroll? Dr. MUMFORD. No; they are not carried on our payroll. Mr. YATES. You have responsibility for it? Dr. MUMFORD. No; we cannot very well assume responsibility since we do not have the responsibility for the personnel. Mr. YATES. But you have the responsibility by law. Did I misunderstand what you said? Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir; that is right. Mr. YATES. You mean I misunderstood, or you do have responsibility? Dr. MUMFORD. We do and we do not. This is what the statute says: The library of the House of Representatives shall be under the control and direction of the Librarian of Congress who shall provide all needful books of reference. The Librarian, two assistant librarians and assistants in the library shall be appointed by the Clerk of the House with the approval of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. No removal shall be made from such positions except for cause reported and approved by the Committee on Rules. With this control of the personnel by the House Speaker and the Clerk of the House, it would be virtually impossible for the Library of Congress to administer it. There is contradictory jurisdiction in the statute. Mr. YATES. What personnel do you have in the other library? Dr. MUMFORD. In our law library in the Capitol we have two people. I do not know whether your question relates to the bookrooms which we maintain. Mr. YATES. There has been a suggestion that the books are not delivered to the bookrooms or cleared out of there to the Members' offices which have requested them as promptly as they should be. Dr. MUMFORD. This has recently been brought to our attention and we are taking measures to try to tighten up this operation so that there will be prompt delivery and prompt collection of materials to and from the Members' offices. Mr. YATES. Doctor, do you have any figures on how extensively the law library in the Capitol is used? Mr. MUMFORD. May I ask Mr. Coffin, the law librarian, if he has such figures? Mr. COFFIN. Yes, sir. I have a table here. Mr. YATES. Is it extensive? I would just like to know whether or not it is frequently used. Mr. COFFIN. In 1965 we had 3,733 readers; in fiscal year 1966, 4,509; the first 9 months of this year, 3,442. It is estimated that we will have about 5,000 for the 12 months of fiscal year 1967. There are a great many questions that come to the law library in the Capitol by telephone and otherwise. In fiscal year 1965, the attorney in charge reported that he had 7,473 questions; in 1966, 15,567 questions. Mr. YATES. How many did he answer? Mr. COFFIN. They responded to all of them. We have two men up there, an attorney in charge at GS-12 and a new man at a GS-9. I understand that the latter received word today that he has passed the bar. Mr. YATES. Did you give him a raise? Mr. COFFIN. We shall, pretty soon. We take them in at the GS-9 level, before they pass the bar and later they go to GS-11. These assistants estimate this year that there will be as many as 16,000 questions. I do not know that you have had an opportunity to use the Law Library in the Capitol Mr. YATES. I have called for volumes of reports from time to time. Mr. COFFIN. It is a small quick reference library, it has about 22,000 or 23,000 volumes, mainly American law. The national Reporter system is there, as well as Session Laws, State codes, current treatises on the law, a selection of law reviews, and other periodicals. Mr. YATES. Who may use it? Mr. COFFIN. We have had to limit its use to Members of the House and the Senate and their staffs. Years ago it was open to the Supreme Court, of course, and to the members of the bar who had business before committees of Congress and the Supreme Court. Now because of space limitations (we have to share space with the Senate Library) this Law Library is in the Capitol wholly on the Senate side, rooms 332, 416, and 417. Mr. YATES. Did I understand the Librarian to say that the Senate. Library is under the jurisdiction of the Library of Congress? Dr. MUMFORD. No, sir. Mr. YATES. It is under the jurisdiction of the Senate? Mr. COFFIN. Yes, sir; under the Secretary of the Senate. But we have to share space with this library. We had space in the original Supreme Court Chamber on the ground floor until about 1951. Mr. YATES. Would it be better for that library to be moved back to the Library of Congress? Mr. COFFIN. I should say not, sir, because of the amount of use; over 25,000 volumes were circulated by that library in 1966. Mr. YATES. You are being enroached upon by the Senate Library, are you not? Mr. COFFIN. No, I think it is the other way around. Mr. YATES. Are you being enroached? Mr. COFFIN. No. Mr. YATES. You are enroaching on them. Mr. COFFIN. I think they have permitted us to use their space. Mr. COFFIN. Because we are so important, sir. Dr. MUMFORD. It serves the purpose of quick access to material which if available only in the Main Library Building, would involve a delay, because it would have to be delivered to the member. Many questions do require the collections at the Main Library Building and are referred. Mr. YATES. Dr. Mumford, under the rules of the House the Clerk is required to retain at least two copies of all Congressional Records, documents, reports, hearings, bills, et cetera, everything that Congress puts out, really. Do you do the same? Does the Library of Congress have within its files-its permanent files-records, documents, reports? Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, we try to be as complete as possible. Mr. YATES. Why should the Clerk of the House have to do it if you do it? Dr. MUMFORD. I am not in a position to say what purpose they serve for the Clerk of the House. Mr. YATES. It is a duplication. Dr. MUMFORD. We are serving not only the Congress and other Government agencies, but the general public. I do not think the Clerk of the House collection would serve that purpose. There may be a need. I do not know what need his collection serves. Mr. YATES. I just wonder why somebody should not take a look at the documents that do issue out of Congress and decide that perhaps the Clerk should continue to have a responsibility for certain. of them and then move the others over to the Library of Congress for its jurisdiction. Mr. Langen, do you have questions? Mr. LANGEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a few. FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM-CONTINUED I think most of the subjects have been covered quite adequately. In looking through the various justifications as they have been presented to the committee, I have noted some rather substantial increases. To begin with, a few of the minor ones. For instance, on page 7 in the Federal telecommunications system, I note that the cost for 1966 was at $16,668, for 1967, now identified as $34,800. That is more than a 50percent increase. It seems like a big increase. Dr. MUMFORD. As it was mentioned in testimony this morning, we are subject to the charges of GSA here. Our own use has increased some but also the rates of GSA have been increased considerably. Mr. LANGEN. How much have the rates gone up? Mr. BERRY. I would say, Mr. Langen, that they doubled. Mr. LANGEN. This is what puzzles me. What should cause them to double in 1 year? Mr. BERRY. I think the Government usage was greater than GSA anticipated and they had to install additional equipment and assess the costs across the board to the participating Government agencies. This is the only explanation we have seen in documents that have come to us from GSA. Our usage also increased from early estimates. PRESERVATION OF MOTION PICTURES Mr. LANGEN. I refer to another item right close to that. Under preservation of motion pictures. There I see in additional laboratory charges are increased up to 32 percent in the past year. Here is another instance. Laboratory charges, what would cause them to go up 32 percent in 1 year? Supposedly with new equipment it should be cheaper. While there may be some salary increases, what causes a 32-percent increase in 1 year? Mr. NOLAN. I do not know of any breakdown. I think you are right as far as salaries are concerned. Most of it is done by the Government: The Army Pictorial Center and the Department of Agriculture. There is no profit. Mr. LANGEN. I realize that. Mr. NOLAN. The cost of material, too, would be a factor. Mr. LANGEN. It has gone up 32 percent in the last year. How much will it go up next year? What caused that terrific increase this last year? Here is an increase of 50 percent and another one of 32 percent. Dr. MUMFORD. I think we have something of a parallel to this in our photoduplication service, which is operated on a revolving fund without cost to the Government. From time to time as salaries and materials go up, we have to revise the rates for the cost of reproduction. We wait until we get to a point where we may be actually losing money and then there has to be a sizable increase which will take care of it for some time in the future before we have to raise rates again. It is possible. I do not know that this applies to the laboratory at the Department of Agriculture. Mr. NOLAN. I believe so. It has been several years since there was any raise. These prices held constant until last year when the raise occurred. Mr. LANGEN. In both instances it does seem to be a rather substantial increase to credit to 1 year. If that is an example of what the future holds, then we have a lot more problems ahead. RENTAL OF MOTOR EQUIPMENT I look at another item. I recall the further discussion with regard to it this morning, rental of equipment from the motor pool. The explanation says, an additional motor pool car will be needed to provide transportation between the rental facility on Taylor Street NW., and the main Library buildings and for at least one other new rental location within the District of Columbia. The identity is specifically related to one motor pool car, which we were then told could be rented for some $2 a day plus 3 cents a mile. On that basis, even if it were rented for 365 days, that would take an awful lot of miles to make up this figure. Mr. BERRY. I mentioned this morning that actually there is some. additional rental envisioned in this particular item, not only for the one vehicle, but for some trucks as needed. Mr. LANGEN. I understood that. But that is not what your explanation says. It says an additional motor pool car. That is all that says. This becomes a part of the record and it leaves the indication that the rent being paid for one car is $2,500. Mr. BERRY. This could conceivably be true. We do not know at the moment how many other cars will be required. Mr. LANGEN. How many miles would you expect to drive one car? Mr. BERRY. If we had two or three rental locations it might be as much as 75 miles a day. Mr. LANGEN. But you haven't got them. Mr. BERRY. Not at the moment, but we have the authorization. Mr. LANGEN. In the testimony there are so many "ifs" as to whether it may be or may not be used. That is why I raised the question. Mr. BERRY. If we obtain this space we will have to provide the service. Mr. LANGEN. There is one base and one car that has so far been identified. The rest is all "maybe." Isn't that right? 78-653-67-30 Mr. BERRY. Yes, sir. We are attempting and have every reason to believe we will obtain additional rental space within the next 6 months. AUTOMATION STUDY-CONTINUED Mr. LANGEN. We had quite some discussion about the automation study and I just want to raise one other question with regard to it, primarily because I did not understand the explanation as of this morning. The acquisition of computer equipment, $150,000, which I understood was for rental of equipment. The figures conveyed to the committee indicated that you are paying now $115,000 to rent the equipment at the present time. Dr. MUMFORD. Yes. Mr. LANGEN. Which means that operation is more than doubled in 1 year. At the same time I believe that the justification on page 107 shows that last year there was $25,000 allocation for acquisition of computer equipment. Of course, these terms all say "acquisition" when really they are "rental." How come the $25,000 last year? Was that in addition to what you had before or how do you account for paying $115,000 rent and a $25,000 figure? Mr. ROSSITER. I think I can explain that, Mr. Langen. We have had $90,000 for computer equipment to do the administrative, fiscal, and payroll-type of things. This $25,000 for additional equipment that appears in 1967 which made the total $115,000 was devoted primarily to testing new programs. The base for computer rental is really $115,000, but only $25,000 has been budgeted from automation studies. We have had equipment for several years on which we have done our regular fiscal work. Mr. LANGEN. Have you got studies you are paying for? I understood this morning you were paying $115,000 in rent. Mr. ROSSITER. Of which $90,000 is for the regular equipment we have always had, and $25,000 additional. Mr. LANGEN. That does not answer my question. Are there studies that you are paying for? Mr. ROSSITER. No, sir, only testing on this equipment. Mr. LANGEN. Testing? Mr. ROSSITER. Debugging and assembling programs. Mr. LANGEN. That you are paying in rent? Mr. ROSSITER. For leasing equipment. That is for computer equip ment. Mr. LANGEN. What did this study or testing come out of that you are talking about? Where does that figure appear. Mr. ROSSITER. The Congress gave us $585,000 for automation study and we allocated $25,000 for certain special pieces of equipment that we rented to assist in testing certain programs. We rented tape drives, and equipment like that. Mr. LANGEN. This can go on continuously so the next fiscal year you add another $150,000. Are you then going to have to add part of that for more testing equipment or more study money? How much is the rent? |