1

operations and the return to the Treasury may be I expect only temporarily somewhat less than in previous years.

SPACE RENTALS AND NEEDS

Finally, I should like to say a few words about the continuing critical space problem of the Library. A request to proceed with the final planning and first steps in constructing the James Madison Memorial Building is in the Architect's budget and I must emphasize again, as I did last year, that this is the most important item for the Library-it is the one on which all future development rests. In the meantime, the General Services Administration has provided two additional leased spaces for the Library's use-in Crystal City, Arlington, for the Copyright Office, and on South Pickett Street in Alexandria for the Geography and Map Division and other uses. This will complete the leasing program started in 1967, and the budget before you, which requests a net increase of $185,000 for this purpose, is needed to support existing leases and does not provide for any additional rentals. I hope that this space will see us through until the Madison Building is completed, but I must point out that our space needs appear to increase by about 45,000 to 50,000 square feet a year. This could make additional interim requests necessary, especially if the Madison Building is further delayed.

REVENUE-PRODUCING ACTIVITIES

The Library, as you know, does have two revenue-producing services. In fiscal 1968, the Copyright Office and the Card Distribution Service between them accounted for receipts of about $8,900,000, or 20 percent of the entire direct appropriation to the Library, and this money is returned to the Treasury.

RESIDENT ENGINEER POSITION

One additional point for the record. The Architect of the Capitol, to improve the efficiency of Library building operations, has agreed to request authority to hire a resident engineer for the Library buildings on my agreement that the Library would give up an administrative position in our building services area. I am prepared to make this reduction if his request is approved.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this summary. The interest and understanding always displayed by this subcommittee has helped immeasurably in making the Library of Congress a great institution. My staff and I will be glad to answer your questions.

I would be glad to elaborate upon any of these items and others.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF REQUESTS FOR 1970

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Dr. Mumford.

Doctor, on page 1 of your statement you say that your total request of $44,677,800 for 1970 represents an increase of $2,541,000 over the 1969 level. In terms of comparison to actual or prospective appropriations for 1969, the increase, according to page 10 of the committee print, is $2,964,900. The difference, I believe, is in the fact that the

pay supplemental requests now pending in the second supplemental bill for 1969 were reduced by $423,900. That seems to be the difference. Do you agree with that analysis?

Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir. That accounts for the absorption of part of the pay increase and the necessity of including it in the base for the following year.

Mr. ANDREWS. I would like to insert at this point in the record tables I, II, and III from the justifications, showing the overall figures and comparisons.

(The tables follow:)

TABLE 1.-LIBRARY OF CONGRESS: COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION AND APPROPRIATION

-Does not include $50,000 to be transferred from "Salaries and expenses, distribution of catalog cards."
TABLE II.-LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, SUMMARY OF BUDGETED POSITIONS 1968, 1969, 1970

Appropriation title

2,964,900

Note: The total number in each instance includes the full-time equivalent of part-time positions. Totals above do not nclude native personnel hired in connection with the special foreign currency program.

TABLE 111.-SUMMARY OF INCREASES AND DECREASES REQUESTED, FISCAL 1970, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Mr. ANDREWS. Doctor, I believe Mr. Rossiter should make appropriate adjustments because of the discrepancy noted in the totals. Mr. ROSSITER. Yes, sir.

NEW POSITIONS VERSUS WORKLOAD

Mr. ANDREWS. You ask for 96 additional positions in all branches. Are you saying that all of them are related directly to increased workload?

Dr. MUMFORD. Essentially so.

Mr. ANDREWS. I believe you stated that you had no new programs for 1970?

Dr. MUMFORD. That is right. A part of the increased request does relate to preservation, but that is almost entirely in terms of money for further microfilming of the deteriorating materials and for preserving important materials in the original.

EXTENT OF MATERIALS PRESERVATION PROBLEM

Mr. ANDREWS. You refer to the preservation problem. Have you made an analysis of the extent of the deterioration of the collections so that you can express it in some way that would give us a good idea of the extent of the problem?

Dr. MUMFORD. Mr. Chairman, I think it will require a continuing program. We have collected, as they have come to our attention, a considerable number of books that are too brittle to bind and they must be microfilmed for preservation. Our newspaper volumes, I think you have seen some of them in the past, have been deteriorating badly and must be microfilmed if they are to be preserved at all. It is a large undertaking, but one which I think we cannot avoid.

I think the Library and the Congress have a tremendous responsibility for the preservation of the great aggregation of knowledge that is contained in the materials in the Library of Congress. We must see that it does not disappear.

Mr. ANDREWS. Preserve them or lose them?

Dr. MUMFORD. Yes. This is what it would amount to.

NATIONAL LIBRARY AUTOMATION PROGRAM

Mr. ANDREWS. You mentioned the automation project. You ask for no increase. On page 4, you say that libaries around the country are proceeding to automate, some with Federal funds. What funds are you referring to?

Dr. MUMFORD. There are some Federal programs, grants to other libraries, such as networks for knowledge, I believe, and under legislation providing for research. These Federal grant programs have enabled other libraries to begin developing automated systems. Mr. Lorenz?

Mr. LORENZ. This is true. The Higher Education Act of 1965 has a provision for library research funds and quite a bit of this money has been going to assist in automating higher education libraries and other research libraries in the country. National Science Foundation funds have also been granted for this purpose.

Mr. ANDREWs. You stated, Doctor, that once this automated system is completed it would tie together all of the libraries of the