U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

40–620 2008

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE LIBRARY OF 

CONGRESS: CURRENT ISSUES IN LIBRARY 

MANAGEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 24, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

Vice-Chairwoman 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

CHARLES A. GONZALES, Texas 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

Ranking Minority Member 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, Staff Director 

WILL PLASTER, Minority Staff Director 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE LIBRARY OF 

CONGRESS: CURRENT ISSUES IN LIBRARY 

MANAGEMENT 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:08 a.m., in room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady 

(chairman of the committee) Presiding. 

Present: Representatives Brady, Ehlers, Lungren, and McCarthy. 

Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Michael Harrison, 

Professional Staff; Khalil Abboud, Professional Staff; Matt Pinkus, 

Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson, Press Director; 

Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative Clerk; Matthew DeFreitas, 

Staff Assistant; Fred Hay, Minority General Counsel; Bryan T. 

Dorsey, Minority Professional Staff; Katie Ryan, Minority Professional Staff; and Salley Collins, Minority Press Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call the Committee on House Administration to order and thank everyone for being here and wish 

everyone a good morning. 

We are convened this morning to continue our oversight on the 

management of the Library of Congress. Today, we will focus on 

three important issues facing the Library: inventory of the collection, cataloging, and the status of the Law Library. 

As the only institution of its type, the Library of Congress is 

unique. It is the largest repository of books, films, photography, 

maps, music and priceless artifacts in the history of the world. It 

is the premier destination for researchers, both nationally and 

internationally. The Library is the research wing of the U.S. Congress, providing information and guidance daily to Members and 

staff alike. 

A collection of this size, however, can be both a blessing and a 

curse. While an invaluable amount of the world’s knowledge is 

stored at the Library of Congress, keeping track of this precious 

collection has proven difficult. Approximately 20 percent of the Library’s collection has been inventoried, while the balance has not. 

The Library of Congress also provides official tools for other libraries throughout the Nation. Before domination by the Internet, 

research was done at libraries, through card catalogs, and the Library of Congress provided the basic information for card catalogs 

across the country. While the digital revolution has caused a steep 

decline in manual research, the art of cataloging is still integral to 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

2 

library science. Although the technology changes, the need to distill 

essential information for researchers remains. Implementing and 

developing new strategies for cataloging in an ever-changing environment must remain a top priority for the Library. 

Finally, the Law Library of Congress is also relied upon by lawyers, judges, law students and researchers throughout the Nation. 

It serves as the first stop for research for the United States Supreme Court. In the past, it has provided a comprehensive collection of legal materials to support historical and current legal analysis. But recent budget limits have led to cutbacks in its collections 

and in the reference staff that assists its users. We must ensure 

that the Law Library continues to serve as the reference of record 

for legal research. 

I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses on these issues. 

And I would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers, 

for any comments that he would like to make. 

[The statement of the Chairman follows:] 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

3 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert offset folio 7 40620A.001
4 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I would like to thank you for calling today’s hearing. 

It is a very important issue. It is not the type that draws headlines, 

but it is essential to the perpetuation of the Library. The successful 

information of Library operations is truly a bipartisan interest, and 

I am thankful for this opportunity to join with you to work together 

on this important matter. 

I would also like to thank each of our witnesses for joining us 

today, as we discuss the current and future state of operations 

within the Library of Congress. 

There are fundamentally three operational goals the Library 

must have in order to achieve its mission of serving the Congress 

while preserving a universal collection of knowledge and creativity 

for future generations. 

First, the Library must ensure the vigilant protection of the Library and its inventory through effective security protocols. Former 

House Administration Chairman Bill Thomas was instrumental in 

the creation of the Library’s security plan, which provided a foundation for many of the Library’s current safeguards against criminal activity. Several security measures, including metal detectors 

at the entrances and exits of the Library, the closed stack system, 

security cameras and Library of Congress Police inspections, were 

successfully implemented over the past several years. While I am 

hopeful that additional measures will be put in place to prevent 

further theft of its inventory, I am pleased that the Library’s focus 

on securing its assets has created increased confidence that the institution is being protected from criminal activity. 

So it is one thing to worry about criminal activity, but there is 

also a matter of concern about sloppiness. I am not accusing the 

Library of that, but I certainly accuse a lot of your patrons of that, 

after having seen some of them. 

The Library has also made tremendous progress in the area of 

digital preservation of materials, both through digital reproduction 

of its existing inventory and in its collection of digital content for 

preservation purposes. And the Library is certainly to be commended for this. 

In digitally reproducing its existing inventory, the Library is 

leveraging the latest technology to capture materials digitally before the natural acidification process or other deterioration takes 

place to ensure that its treasures will be preserved for generations 

to come. 

The Library’s preservation of digital content involves identifying 

and collecting at-risk digital materials, creating a national network 

of partners working together to preserve digital content, and developing technical tools and services for preservation. And I commend 

the Library for all their good work in this area. 

While these strides in securing and preserving the Library’s materials are crucial for future patrons of the institution, there is still 

much work to be done in the area of inventory management. The 

Library’s own Inspector General has found that at least 17 percent 

of the Library’s general collection cannot be located. When nearly 

two out of 10 items in the Library’s most often used collection are 

unaccounted for, we must demand answers where these items are 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

5 

and why they have not been captured in the Library’s efforts to 

catalog its items. 

Another area of concern is the failure of administrators to complete a comprehensive inventory of the Library’s items. The Baseline Inventory Program started in 2002, and now, 5 years later, 

only 20 percent of the project has been completed. 

This is particularly troublesome given the pending merger between the LOC Police and the Capitol Police. A bill that approves 

the merger between the Library of Congress Police force and the 

United States Capitol Police force will soon come before this panel 

for a markup. This merger represents a new era of security for the 

Library and an opportunity to put in place even tighter inventory 

controls. 

To measure the impact of changes resulting from the merger, a 

complete inventory of all the Library assets is essential. With a 

thousand new items being shelved each day by Library employees, 

this is a problem that is growing rapidly. Without a completed inventory, the Nation’s most prestigious library is in danger of becoming little more than a neglected storage facility, rather than the 

world’s standard-setter for best practices in collections administration. 

I am eager to hear from our witnesses as to what plans are in 

place to assail this growing threat. 

And let me also say publicly the same thing I said to you privately: You might be well-advised to consult with Wal-Mart, Target, other major chains. They certainly keep track of as many items 

of inventory and manage to do it successfully every day and make 

money while doing it. That might be a good model to follow. 

I thank our witnesses for joining us today. I welcome your testimony. God bless you in your important work, and we hope we can 

continue to work well together. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

6 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert offset folio 12 40620A.002
7 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert offset folio 13 40620A.003
8 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert offset folio 14 40620A.004
9 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert offset folio 15 40620A.005
10 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Any other members of the committee that would like to make a 

statement? 

Hearing none, thanks. 

Our first witness is Dr. James Billington. 

And I would like to thank you for showing up today. I understand you have your wingman and wingwoman here, Dr. Marcum 

and Dr. Medina, for purposes of helping us with any questions. 

And we thank them also. 

I understand you are celebrating your 20th year as Librarian of 

Congress. 

During his tenure at the Library of Congress, the collection has 

expanded by more than 50 million items. Since 1987, Dr. 

Billington’s first year as Librarian of Congress, the Library has 

raised more than $322 million in private contributions and in-kind 

gifts to supplement federally appropriated funds. 

We welcome your testimony today. We do have a 5-minute clock 

because we have another large panel, and we would like to get this 

done before we have to run back and forth to votes. So we do thank 

you all for being here. 

And now we recognize Dr. James H. Billington. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES H. BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF 

CONGRESS, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS; ACCOMPANIED BY MS. 

DEANNA MARCUM, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY 

SERVICES, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, AND MR. RUBENS MEDINA, LIBRARIAN, LAW LIBRARY OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Mr. BILLINGTON. Thank you, Chairman Brady, Mr. Ehlers, members of the committee. We are glad to have a chance to appear before you to discuss the Library’s inventory, management and the 

Law Library collections. 

Accompanying me is Dr. Deanna Marcum, associate librarian for 

library services, and Dr. Rubens Medina, the law librarian of Congress. Each will speak briefly after my remarks. I have asked them 

to comment specifically on the article that appeared in this morning’s Washington Post about so-called missing collections and on 

the testimony that has been submitted by outside witnesses without consultation with the Library but which was made available to 

us last night. So I would like to set the record straight, which Dr. 

Marcum will proceed to do, with updated and more accurate information. 

The Congress of the United States has been the greatest patron 

of the Library in human history, preserving far more of the world’s 

knowledge and America’s creativity than any other institution. Our 

collections are in almost every language and format. They total 

nearly 135 million physical items and 229 terabytes of stored digital material. 

But we are a working library, not a storehouse of information to 

be locked down. Our mandate is to provide direct public access, 

often on a circulating basis, to our collections. And this distinguishes us from most museums and other cultural institutions and 

requires a different approach to assessing what we hold and how 

to protect it. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

11 

Our challenge was, and is, to maximize both access and security 

and to balance these equally important but often competing imperatives. Early in my tenure, we developed an integrated plan to 

secure the collections based on three components: physical security, 

bibliographic and inventory controls, and physical preservation. 

I could go through the history here, but let me shorten it and 

just say that we developed a number of security protocols. In 1997, 

a Library of Congress security plan defined the threat to the collections using a five-tiered framework of risk of importance in our collections and created a system of physical security controls—which 

Mr. Ehlers has already mentioned, to some extent. Since then, we 

have further refined our practices and now operate under a strategic plan for safeguarding the collections shared with and approved by this committee, with goals, objectives and performance 

measures. 

Protecting the collections requires a policing function, bibliographic and inventory controls, and state-of-the-art preservation 

treatment. 

Inventory efforts have no precedent in the world library community for a collection of this size and complexity. I am not aware of 

any other major research library or similar cultural institution that 

has even attempted to completely inventory its collections on anything like this scale because of the inherent difficulties and cost. 

The cost would be astronomical for a collection of this size, shelved 

on 615 miles of shelving and, as an ultimate inventory should cover 

every moment and stage of an item’s life cycle during its entrance 

and usage in the Library. 

We are now supplementing traditional methods of inventory, 

which have been in effect, by inventorying materials when they are 

moved from one point in the life cycle to another, such as when a 

congressional staff member borrows a book that has not yet been 

barcoded. This supplementary use-driven method of inventory 

means that item holdings are added every time a previously unrecorded item is retrieved for use or moved to another location. 

A successful recent example of the use-driven technique is the 

examination we have made of the 6.2 million items in our Moving 

Image and Sound Recording Collections in preparation for relocating them at the new, state-of-the-art Packard campus in 

Culpeper, Virginia. Lessons learned in this successful process will 

help us shape broader inventory practices in the future. 

Our security office conducts inspections of the collections, and 

our Inspector General independently performs regular reviews. 

They have found no significant deficiencies in our safeguards. We 

have had no known instances of theft from the collections since the 

1990s, when I implemented our expanded collection security protocols. The Library of Congress collections security program has been 

viewed as a model for some time now by a number of national and 

international cultural institutions. 

You asked also for my comments on the state of the Library’s law 

collections. As you know, the top priority of the Law Library is 

service to Congress, using the largest collection of authoritative 

legal sources in the world, including more than 2.5 million volumes 

and almost 134,000 digital items. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

12 

The Law Library’s goal is the same as the Library as a whole, 

namely to continue to add to its collections, keeping them up-todate without subtracting. Legal collections must provide a complete 

cumulative record, up-to-date, to be useful. 

The Law Library contains a complete record of American law and 

unparalleled foreign and international law materials. Because, for 

instance, we hold the largest collection of Afghan laws that exist 

in the world today, the Law Library was able to locate a missing 

portion of Afghanistan’s traditional law that was destroyed by the 

Taliban, which was unavailable anywhere else in the world, and 

has been restored for post-Taliban Afghanistan usage. 

As the Law Library celebrates its 175th anniversary this year, 

it faces growing obstacles to keeping its collections current because 

of flat appropriations, declining rate of the dollar, and steep price 

increases by legal publishers. That affects, by the way, right across 

the Library as well. For the first time, the Law Library has reluctantly begun canceling $200,000 worth of subscriptions. 

As the Librarian of Congress, I have a continuing, high-priority 

responsibility to safeguard the collections and to sustain them. And 

we will continue to approach the bibliographic and inventory controls as critical components of our overall collection security program. 

I would be happy to answer any questions, but I think you want 

to hear, perhaps, also, from Dr. Marcum and from Dr. Medina. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. 

[The statement of Mr. Billington follows:] 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

13 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 23 40620A.006
14 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 24 40620A.007
15 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 25 40620A.008
16 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 26 40620A.009
17 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 27 40620A.010
18 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 28 40620A.011
19 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 29 40620A.012
20 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 30 40620A.013
21 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 31 40620A.014
22 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 32 40620A.015
23 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 33 40620A.016
24 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 34 40620A.017
25 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 35 40620A.018
26 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 36 40620A.019
27 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 37 40620A.020
28 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 38 40620A.021
29 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 39 40620A.022
30 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 40 40620A.023
31 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 41 40620A.024
32 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 42 40620A.025
33 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 43 40620A.026
34 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 44 40620A.027
35 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 45 40620A.028
36 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 46 40620A.029
37 

The CHAIRMAN. You are welcome. 

Sure, Dr. Marcum. 

Ms. MARCUM. Thank you. 

Chairman Brady, Mr. Ehlers, members of the committee, until I 

saw this morning’s Washington Post headline, I was prepared to 

talk solely about the progress we have made on the Baseline Inventory Program. In response to the headline and in response to the 

testimony that has been submitted by the American Library Association, I am compelled to talk about broader issues. 

First, I would address Inspector General Karl Schornagel’s report 

of March 13, 2007, the preliminary ‘‘Survey of Collections Access, 

Loan and Management Division Service.’’ That was the basis of the 

article in the Post this morning. 

What was not included in the article were these sentences from 

the executive summary, in which the Inspector General says, and 

I quote, ‘‘We performed a survey of the material retrieval service 

provided by Collections Management. We initiated this project to 

determine if the division efficiently and effectively responds to requests to retrieve collection items.’’ He concludes, and, again, I 

quote, ‘‘We did not become aware of any material weaknesses in 

Collections Management operations during our survey and concluded that further audit work on this project is not necessary at 

this time. Our survey indicated that Collections Management is 

providing timely and accurate retrieval service, especially considering the volume of material it handles and the size of the Library’s general collections.’’ 

Today’s article did not correctly interpret the IG’s audit report. 

The headline’s misleading reference to 17 percent is not a number 

reflecting books that are missing. As the IG report states, once we 

have identified that a book is not where we expect it to be, the 

more intensive search results in finding the item in all but about 

10 percent of the time. And I would note, for the committee’s information, that the not-on-shelf rate for the Library has been cut in 

half over the past several years. 

I want to assure the committee that we take our responsibility 

for stewardship very seriously, and we are working on the Baseline 

Inventory Program that the Congress funded beginning in 2002. 

That name, ‘‘Baseline Inventory Program,’’ sounds unexciting, but 

the program is critical. It enables us to identify what we actually 

have on our shelves at any given time. 

This program was begun at a time when we were pulling all of 

the separate divisions’ catalogs into a single, online public access 

catalog. For this catalog, we had to combine bibliographic descriptions, which are used by libraries worldwide, with descriptions 

from our manual card files. Only then could online users identify 

items that we hold, determine the formats in which those items exists, and determine the items’ locations. This effort has no precedent among large research libraries. It helped us keep track of our 

collections and give users more accessible information about our 

holdings. 

The Library of Congress is not like a commercial warehouse that 

can close for a few days to take an inventory. New materials come 

to us constantly, roughly 10,000 items per day. Therefore, controlwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

38 

ling our inventory is not simply a project that we can complete, but 

it is a continuous, ongoing core activity. 

In the Baseline Inventory Program, as of June 2007, we had 

inventoried 2.9 million books and journals. And, as you noted, that 

is about 20 percent of the general collections. To these items, we 

have added nearly 2 million volumes that we inventoried to be 

moved to Fort Meade and 6.2 million audiovisual collections that 

we moved to our new Packard campus in Culpeper, Virginia. Additionally, members of our collections format divisions have inventoried, as a separate activity, many of the special collections. 

Now we have begun to implement recommendations made by our 

Strategic Planning Working Group. The most important is to continue our initial sequential inventory but to supplement it with 

use-driven inventory controls for materials in special format collections and materials moved to new locations. To carry out the working group’s additional recommendations, we will need to add staff 

and financial resources over the next 18 to 24 months. 

In strategic planning for the Library Services Service Unit, my 

management team is now weighing recommendations from all of 

the working groups in light of available resources and future priorities. Many pressing core activities still need funding, such as cataloging for the digital information era, about which the American Library Association will appeal to you shortly, because so many libraries depend on our leadership in cataloging. 

You will also hear from ALA that the Library has been less cooperative than it once was and that it is reducing the number of its 

catalogers. Please allow me to clarify the facts. 

The Library of Congress works with 694 other libraries in its 

Program for Cooperative Cataloging. This is a program we both 

staff and support. We participate in literally dozens of committees 

and organizations that collaboratively set cataloging policies. 

In addition, after ALA complained about a decision that the Library made to streamline its cataloging processes by not creating 

series authority records, I responded by forming a Working Group 

on the Future of Bibliographic Control. I invited ALA to appoint 

three members to this group. It did, and joined representatives 

from all of the other major library associations on this project. The 

group has held open hearings in all regions of the country, including ALA headquarters in Chicago. We maintain a Web site for this 

project so that anyone, from any part of the country or, indeed, any 

part of the world, can comment both on the papers that are forming the working group’s deliberations and the process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me. We will be voting pretty soon. Could 

you summarize a little bit? We will have Mr. Medina testify, and 

then we will be called for a vote and will come back and have some 

questions. 

Ms. MARCUM. All right. Okay. 

Let me just say that, in terms of cataloging productivity, even 

though we have reduced the number of catalogers from 650 in 1987 

to 400 today, in the late 1980s we were cataloging 200,000 books 

a year and today we are cataloging 363,000 books a year. Add to 

that, we are adding table-of-contents information and, in cases 

where we can, full text to the bibliographic record. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

39 

So we are trying to meet all the needs with existing staff by 

streamlining and finding imaginative solutions. Inventory control is 

especially pressing because the special funding for the project runs 

out after 1 year. Support for this program enables us to keep track 

of our valuable holdings in a way that also makes it easier for millions of students, scholars and others across the country to find the 

material they need. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Medina. 

Mr. MEDINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Brady, Mr. Ehlers, members of the committee, the 

Law Library’s top priority has always been to respond to congressional needs for legal information—national, foreign and international. 

The need for access to foreign and comparative law has never 

been greater or more immediate, as demonstrated by the interest 

of Congress in their request for studies, as well as the requests we 

get from the legal and business community. At the same time, the 

questions are increasingly more complex and the sources more 

abundant than ever before. In this environment, the Law Library 

is challenged to meet rising expectations. These expectations include the capability to have immediately at hand current and complete legal information. 

To meet these challenges, the Law Library has launched an initiative to take advantage of appropriate technology to gain timely 

access and make available critical primary sources of law in an authoritative form. The Global Legal Information Network is a cooperative effort linking together the legislatures of the world to provide mutual access to laws, regulations, court decisions and related 

legal materials. 

By working collaboratively with national legislatures or their 

designated agencies, we are ensuring that information in the system is of the highest possible quality, in contrast to a great deal 

of the content available on the Internet, which is of questionable 

origin and authenticity. 

This system holds great promise for the future, as more countries 

join each year and the system grows to become a comprehensive, 

unparalleled collection of global legal information. We appreciate 

the Congress’ support for GLIN over the last 5 years and hope we 

can enjoy your continued support. 

The Law Library has also just completed a major upgrade of its 

Web site to deliver legal content to Congress and the Nation. This 

site includes the Global Legal Monitor, a monthly online publication offering highlights of legal developments from countries 

around the world that was launched by the Law Library in 2006. 

In addition, we offer studies on current legal topics, such as the judicial crisis in Pakistan and the trial of Saddam Hussein. 

We are also digitizing the Law Library’s collections not available 

elsewhere online, including approximately 70,000 volumes of congressional hearings that will be made available through GLIN, 

THOMAS, and the LIS. We are starting with those covering immigration, the national census and freedom of information. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

40 

The availability of more digital legal sources has not, however, 

replaced print sources. In fact, we are faced with an increase in 

both media. The key to the future is to successfully integrate all 

print and media collections to allow users the ability to seamlessly 

find high-quality information that is customized to their particular 

needs. Law libraries face some particular obstacles, such as the 

need to continue to collect laws and other regulatory publications 

in their official form, which is still print. 

Through digital means, the Library can make its collection accessible to the entire world. And with that accessibility comes demand 

for services, as well. Last fiscal year, approximately 20 percent of 

the Law Library’s online inquiries came from countries other than 

the U.S. 

In making this material available globally, we work, for example, 

with the House Democracy Assistance Commission, as they assist 

parliaments of new democracies for the purpose of strengthening 

their parliamentary infrastructure. Countries with access to law 

and other information, as we know, are more likely to build strong 

democracies based on the rule of law. 

This year, the Law Library celebrates its 175th anniversary as 

the oldest separate department of the Library of Congress. We 

have been celebrating this milestone with programs featuring legal 

scholars discussing current issues, national security and the rule of 

law, effective assistance of counsel. And I invite you and the members of this committee to join us for these lively and timely programs. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ehlers, I thank you for the opportunity to 

highlight new developments at the Law Library of Congress. And 

my colleagues and I would be, I am sure, happy to answer any 

questions. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We do have a vote going on, but Mr. Lungren probably has to 

leave, so I will allow him to ask a question of the panel. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

that. 

You know, I am one of those that brags on the Library of Congress, and I think it is one of the great institutions. But I must tell 

you, I am concerned about what I read in The Washington Post. 

And what I understand is we started with the 17 percent. Then 

they found 4 percent. And now you tell us, Dr. Marcum, that actually the loss is only 10 percent, if I understand your testimony correctly. 

With all the great things the Library is doing and that we take 

great pride in, that is still a concern for us, as Members here, and 

for our constituents, as well. 

I would like to ask two questions. One is that, in both the Inspector General’s 2002 March report, collection security audit, and the 

March 2007 survey of collections, it cites that one of the major deficiencies in the Library’s inventory management is the continued 

use of paper call slips by users to request items in reading rooms. 

It is not tracked within the integrated Library system. 

The thing that jumps out at me is this was suggested in 2002; 

we then see the report in 2007 suggesting that not much has been 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

41 

done about that. Are you doing something on that? And if you are, 

is it going to take another 5 years for it to actually get into effect? 

Ms. MARCUM. We are, indeed, doing something about that. We 

have a consultant working with us now. 

The difficulty was in creating a database that had the names and 

passwords for all of the users. So we have been working on getting 

the patron database in place. That is now in place. The work will 

be done in the next 18 months, at the latest. 

Mr. LUNGREN. It will be completed within 18 months? 

Ms. MARCUM. It will be completed within 18 months. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The second question I would have is this. And I 

take seriously what Mr. Ehlers said, about looking to the private 

sector. And I know you are smiling when I say that. But the fact 

of the matter is, I remember when I went to law school, we were 

told, as we went through the library stacks, that they would never 

be computerized because that was an impossible thing to do. You 

needed the human element there, and we would always have to 

have those little books that would allow us to go back in previous 

decisions. And now, it is one of the easiest things. I find that new 

people coming out of law school can’t believe we used to actually 

go in the stacks and do that ourselves. 

Ms. MARCUM. Right. 

Mr. LUNGREN. But this: When I was attorney general of California, we had a problem with our criminal histories, similar to 

what you are talking about, as you had some manual things you 

had to digitize, you had to bring your programs together and so 

forth. And every time, for about 3 years, I talked to them about 

bringing it up-to-date, because I think the criminal history filing in 

California gets something on the order of 2 million inquiries per 

day—they have to be instantaneous and accurate, because you are 

dealing with people’s lives—what I was told was that we needed 

more money and more manpower. I seem to hear the same thing 

from you. 

But the fact of the matter is, this wasn’t more money and manpower; it was putting the proper system in place to do that. And 

we actually got some good ideas from the private sector. If UPS can 

track something, tens of thousands, if not millions, of pieces per 

day, and does not have a loss rate of 10 percent, why can’t you? 

Ms. MARCUM. I appreciate your point. We want to reduce that 

number, and we are working on that. The one thing I think you 

should understand is we are a living, breathing library. Things are 

moving all the time. They are being checked out to Members of 

Congress or to staff. 

Mr. LUNGREN. You did not check to see if I have any overdue 

books, did you? I was a little concerned about that. 

I mean, I appreciate your comments. I appreciate that. I appreciate it is a living, working library. But I would say, in the private 

sector, we have literally millions of pieces of material moving all 

across the world, and you can, within a relatively short period of 

time, find out where that is. And I would bet you that, if UPS or 

any of the others had a loss rate of 10 percent, they would be out 

of business. 

Ms. MARCUM. No doubt. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

42 

I should mention—Mr. Ehlers asked about RFID. That is one of 

the recommendations that has been made by our working group 

looking at this situation. And there it really is a matter of money. 

An RFID tag costs between $0.50 and $0.65, based on exactly the 

type. The labels we are using now cost $0.08. It is a huge difference 

in cost. And in this case, it is a matter of money. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We do have to vote. And we will be back, hopefully, within about 

40 minutes, and we can ask some more questions we might have. 

Thank you all. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call the hearing on House Administration back to order. 

Thank you all for your patience and waiting. 

I do have some questions from Zoe Lofgren, who is stuck in a 

markup in another committee, and so I would like to enter them 

for the record. And they will be forwarded to you, and you can answer them for her. 

[The information follows:] 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

43 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 60 40620A.030
44 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 61 40620A.031
45 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 62 40620A.032
46 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 64 40620A.034
47 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 65 40620A.035
48 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 66 40620A.036
49 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 67 40620A.037
50 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 68 40620A.038
51 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 69 40620A.039
52 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 70 40620A.040
53 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 71 40620A.041
54 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 72 40620A.042
55 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 73 40620A.043
56 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 74 40620A.044
57 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 75 40620A.045
58 

The CHAIRMAN. My question is in your copyrights, you have to 

receive books; you receive two for each copyright. Do you keep all 

of those books? Do you have to keep all of those books? That has 

to overload your inventory. Is there any that you can just not necessarily keep? 

Ms. MARCUM. We don’t keep everything that comes through copyright. There are about 22,000 items a day that come through all 

of the processes, including copyright deposit. Of those 22,000, we 

keep 10,000, approximately, each day. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you do cut them in half. 

Ms. MARCUM. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t have any other questions. 

Mr. Ehlers, do you have any questions you would like to ask? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, I do. Thank you. 

The first one, the original estimate for completing the baseline 

inventory was 8 years ago. And you are several years into the 

project, and, as the Inspector General will undoubtedly testify, the 

project is only 20 percent complete. 

How much has been budgeted over the past 3 fiscal years to conduct the Baseline Inventory Program of the items in the Library’s 

collections, and how does that compare with the overall budget of 

the Library during that same period? 

Ms. MARCUM. Mr. Ehlers, I can answer the first part. I don’t 

know how it compares with the overall budget of the Library. Originally budgeted for this project was $1.1 million per year. 

With some of the difficulties we ran into in finding enough qualified contractors for doing the work, we have spent between 

$800,000 and $1 million each year for the last 3 years on the 

project. 

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. So you have not expended quite all of it. 

Ms. MARCUM. Not quite all of the money. 

Mr. EHLERS. Has all the money been spent on conducting the 

baseline inventory, or has any of it been reallocated to other priorities? 

Ms. MARCUM. No, it has not been reallocated. All has been spent 

on the Baseline Inventory Program. Some of that money was spent 

on what we call use-driven inventory. That is when materials were 

being moved from the Jefferson Building to Fort Meade, for example. Some of that money was used to inventory the materials that 

had to be moved to storage. But it has not been reallocated for any 

other purpose. 

Mr. EHLERS. Now, it is my understanding that almost all of that 

inventory work has been conducted by contractors. And you referred to that a moment ago, too. What kind of training do these 

contractors receive? And what is the turnover rate? Once you have 

trained them, do they stick around, or has there been quick a turnover rate? 

Ms. MARCUM. There has been some turnover. 

Although, we have been very fortunate to work with a company 

called LSSI. It is a company in Maryland that specializes in library 

employees, so many of them do have library-related training. We 

conduct a further training program for them once they come to the 

Library to work with us. But most of them have a good background. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

59 

Some of them are hired for permanent jobs in the Library, as you 

might expect, if they are doing a good job. All of these contractors 

are managed by Library staff, and we have a series of staff rotating 

through the project so that we have catalogers working with the 

baseline inventory staff to resolve bibliographic problems as they 

arise. 

Mr. EHLERS. And what about the turnover rate of the—— 

Ms. MARCUM. I don’t know the exact turnover rate. I would be 

glad to supply that exact number for you. 

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. Thank you. 

One other question that has just been handed to me—let me just 

read it and see if I want to ask it. 

The Library’s mission is to make its resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and 

preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations. That is all preamble, but the real question is, 

how do you prioritize the resources at the Library to ensure you 

meet your mission? 

And, of course, our concern is that you are behind in general on 

the inventory project to identify what you have and also to maintain it. How do you prioritize that? Do you need more money for 

that? If so, where can you get it besides from us? 

And I just wonder what you have to say about that. 

Ms. MARCUM. Well, it is an important priority, but, as you read 

in our mission statement, our work is to identify the materials that 

will be useful to the Congress and the American people and to 

make them accessible—to preserve them and make them accessible. So our first priority has to be acquiring the materials in the 

first place, because, without them, we cannot provide access. So the 

inventory control program is extremely important, but it has to be 

fit in with other priorities. 

And perhaps it is because I am such a librarian at heart, but acquisitions have to come first. Nothing else happens without our acquiring material in the first place. But we try to balance all of 

these things, and security of the collections is a very big priority. 

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. My time has expired, so I will let it rest 

there. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Lungren, I know you asked a few questions, but you are 

back shortly. Anything else? 

Mr. LUNGREN. I hope it has not been covered while I was gone, 

but we are in the midst of the merger of the two police departments. And one of the concerns I know raised at the first hearing 

we had on that is that those serving the Library of Congress now 

are trained in protection of the inventory. And there was some 

question about whether you would lose some of that when we have 

the new merger with the Capitol Police, whether they would be 

trained for it. 

My question is this: To what extent, if any, is the problem—and 

I will call it a problem—of 10 percent unaccounted-for books part 

of a lack of a secure system utilizing your current police force for 

ensuring that books do not leave that are not properly checked out, 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

60 

properly identified and so forth? Is there any way of gauging that, 

number one? 

And number two, if there is, does that suggest increases in—or 

intensification of the training of that part of your staff? And if so, 

does that, in any way, impact the suggested merger of the two departments? 

Mr. BILLINGTON. I think, if you would agree, that our chief operating officer ought to give you an update and response—Joanne 

Jenkins. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you for asking the question. 

We do not believe that the items are necessarily stolen. I think 

it is more a matter of being misplaced or put on the wrong shelf. 

The training that the Capitol Police who are currently assigned 

to the Library—takes about a week for them to go through the 

training. We have a skilled Library of Congress Police who conduct 

that training. The officers who are there working with us now conduct that without any problems. So the transition plan is in place, 

so that once we merge, that the remaining officers who would be 

assigned to the Library would go through that process. 

I think the Capitol Police’s and our expectations are that most 

of the Library of Congress Police will be reassigned to the Library 

post, so that there wouldn’t be any significant cost in that training. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The other question I would have is this. You are 

a unique library, no doubt about it. You are the preeminent library, 

in my judgment. But is there any way that you can compare and 

contrast your inventory controls and the apparent unaccounted-for 

10 percent with other libraries—I realize you are a unique library—but other libraries, in terms of their inventory controls? 

Ms. MARCUM. We know of no other major research library that 

has tried to do this. There are college libraries and public libraries 

that will inventory their collections because they are small and 

they can do that pretty easily. Several college libraries close for the 

summer, and the staff will go through and inventory the collection 

each summer to make sure materials are still there. 

We know of no very large, complicated library that has tried to 

do this. So we are unique in that way, too. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Having no other questions, thank you for being 

here. Thanks for sharing information with us. Thank you. 

We will now call the next panel up, please. 

Good morning, and thank you for being here to testify. 

We have former Representative Bill Orton, who represented 

Utah’s 3rd District from 1991 to 1997. Representative Orton has 

served on numerous task forces for the American Bar Association’s 

Standing Committee on the Law Library of Congress. 

Tedson Meyers is the chairman of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Law Library, as well as the 

chairman of the Arthur C. Clark Foundation. Mr. Meyers is a life 

fellow of the American Bar Foundation. 

Ann Fessenden is president of the American Association of Law 

Libraries and is a law librarian for the 8th Federal Circuit Court, 

seated in St. Louis, Missouri. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

61 

Karl Schornagel has served as the Inspector General of the Library of Congress since 2001. Starting as a junior auditor with the 

Treasury Department, Mr. Schornagel has over 28 years of experience in evaluating Federal Government programs. 

And James R. Rettig is president of the American Library Association and a university librarian at the University of Richmond. 

Thank you, and welcome, all of you. And we look forward to your 

testimony. 

And I would like to start with the Honorable Bill Orton first, and 

ask you to keep it to 5 minutes. And anything that you go over we 

will certainly take for the record. Thank you. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. WILLIAM H. ORTON, A FORMER REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH; 

MS. ANN FESSENDEN, CIRCUIT LIBRARIAN, U.S. COURTS LIBRARY 8TH CIRCUIT, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 

OF LAW LIBRARIES; MR. TEDSON MEYERS, ESQ., CHAIRMAN, 

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION; MR. JAMES R. 

RETTIG, PRESIDENT-ELECT, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION; HON. KARL W. SCHORNAGEL, INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ORTON 

Mr. ORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the invitation to testify before this important oversight hearing of the Library of Congress. 

My testimony is based upon my personal experience, serving 

here in this body for three terms on the House Budget Committee 

and 11 years on the ABA Standing Committee for the Law Library 

of Congress. It is based upon my own observations and opinions. 

It may be consistent with, but not necessarily representative of, the 

policies or positions of the ABA and the AALL. 

I would like to begin by sharing some history and personal perspective over the past decade, as the Library of Congress, and specifically the Law Library, have struggled during a period of shrinking budgets and increased demand for resources. 

I preface it with my strong statement in support of Dr. 

Billington. He has served the Congress and the Nation in his capacity as Librarian. He has operated under impossible budget constraints. The Law Library has operated under even more unworkable budget constraints, as their collection consists of approximately 12 percent of the total volumes of the Library of Congress 

yet they receive annually just 2 to 3 percent of the total Library 

of Congress budget. In my opinion, it is unfair to criticize Dr. 

Billington or Dr. Medina and his staff when the Congress has 

failed to appropriate sufficient funds to perform the mission of the 

Library of Congress, let alone address crises when they arise. 

Perhaps more than any other section of the Library of Congress, 

the Law Library must maintain currency, or it cannot be relied 

upon as an original source for legal research. Due to years of budget shortages, the Law Library fell behind in posting the updated 

pages and had a backlog of between a million and 2 million pages. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

62 

Our standing committee presented this issue to the appropriators 

in the House and Senate, who recognized this serious problem and 

appropriated a $2 million earmark to solve the problem. I am 

happy to report that, in recent meetings with the Law Library, 

they have indicated that they have resolved the issue and remain 

current in those legal services. 

Yet the Law Library continues to experience numerous high-priority concerns. Within the Law Library resides a treasure trove of 

some of the rarest books in the entire Library collection. Yet, due 

to a lack of resources, the Law Library could not even hire a curator to pull those treasures out of the general collection and place 

them into a rare book collection, where they would be properly secured and maintained. 

If a law library is to remain current in the law, it must acquire, 

catalog, classify and shelve materials within days or weeks at most. 

However, since the Law Library is reliant upon the Library of Congress for cataloging, the average time between acquisition and 

shelving of materials has been years and, most recently, 6 to 7 

months, rather than days or weeks. 

A related problem in is the rising cost of maintaining periodicals 

and journal subscriptions and the acquisition of new books and 

treatises. With the end of the Cold War, the fall of communism, 

changes in the Middle East, Asia and China, foreign laws have 

been changing at a rate never before experienced. The Law Library 

of Congress is recognized around the world as the repository of foreign and comparative law. Without resources to keep pace with 

these increased costs, the Law Library cannot continue to complete 

its mission. 

In keeping with its mission, shortly after the collapse of the 

former Soviet Union, Dr. Medina had a vision that gave birth to 

the Global Legal Information Network, or GLIN, which provides 

Internet access to digitized statutes and legal information of foreign countries. While it remains reliant upon congressional appropriations in the current cycle, a foundation has been established 

that I hope will be capable of self-sustainment in the near future. 

Books or other materials in the Library that cannot be located 

are useless. They must be properly classified within the collection 

for easy retrieval. Over 5 years ago, the Library of Congress completed what it calls the ‘‘K Classification’’ of foreign law. However, 

the Law Library still has almost 750,000 volumes awaiting reclassification. It is imperative that funding resources be available to 

the Law Library to complete this K Classification. 

The Law Library has been under heavy budget constraints and 

has lost many FTEs. This reduction in staff, without firing employees, was accomplished by not replacing retiring employees. That 

has now placed the Law Library in a very precarious position. A 

very high percentage of subject and language specialists are near 

or beyond retirement age. These employees are highly skilled in 

unique areas of law and not easily replaced. It can take years to 

hire and train them. Without additional resources, the Library is 

facing a personnel crisis that could paralyze the mission and function of the Library. 

So my recommendation for a solution is that I would urge the 

committee to look at what is working within the Library of Conwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

63 

gress system today. The CRS and the Copyright Office both have 

a separate line item in the legislative ops budget, yet they are both 

part of the Library of Congress system. So I would urge the oversight committee to consider recommending a line item budget for 

the Library of Congress, which would ensure that specific funding 

allocated to the Law Library is actually spent for the intended purpose. 

It would also make the Library directly accountable to Congress 

for its operations and service. And I believe an added benefit to be 

achieved is it would allow opportunities for future partnerships 

with the bar and law libraries for private funding of new and expanded services of the Library. 

This concludes my testimony. Again, I am grateful for the invitation to share my opinions and perspective. I would be happy, at the 

appropriate time, to answer any questions. 

I would ask that my full statement be included in the record and 

have the opportunity to revise and extend my comments. 

[The statement of Mr. Orton follows:] 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

64 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 90 40620A.046
65 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 91 40620A.047
66 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 92 40620A.048
67 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 93 40620A.049
68 

The CHAIRMAN. So ordered. 

Ms. Ann Fessenden. 

Ms. FESSENDEN. Good afternoon. I am Ann Fessenden, president 

of the American Association of Law Libraries, or AALL, and circuit 

librarian for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in St. 

Louis, Missouri. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important oversight 

hearing on the Library of Congress and for inviting me to appear 

today on behalf of AALL. I am pleased to be on the same panel as 

my distinguished colleagues from the American Bar Association. 

Together, AALL and the ABA share the same vision and goals 

for a more robust, better-funded Law Library, one which will be 

able to meet the needs of anyone who seeks important legal information but cannot find it in their local law library or perhaps anywhere in the United States or even the world. 

The Law Library is the only comprehensive legal and legislative 

research collection in the United States and, therefore, serves as 

our Nation’s de facto national law library. The Law Library’s mission is to provide timely access to its collection for Members of Congress and their staffs, for the Congressional Research Service, the 

Federal courts, the executive branch, the legal community and the 

members of the public. 

AALL is very concerned that, historically, the Law Library’s 

services, collections, facilities and digital projects have not been 

sustained with the funds or staffing that are necessary for it to fulfill its mission. 

The Law Library’s collection of more than 2.5 million volumes 

comprises the largest and most comprehensive collection of legal 

materials in the world. Its multilingual attorneys, researchers and 

reference librarians serve well over 100,000 users every year. 

With an exceptionally skilled staff competent in most foreign languages as well as international law, the Law Library serves a rapidly increasing number of remote users from throughout the world, 

who access its unique digital collections through the Law Library’s 

Web site. Law libraries across the country depend on these unique 

collections, both print and digital, on a daily basis. 

My formal statement responds to several issues raised by your 

staff, but I would like to comment briefly on two of them. 

First, the substantial price increases for legal serials. Specialized 

legal serials are extremely expensive, and their rising costs far exceed the rate of inflation. Law libraries throughout the country 

have had to postpone the purchase of new titles and, in many 

cases, even cancel titles. This is certainly true in my own library, 

and unfortunately it is true of the Law Library of Congress as well. 

The Law Library of Congress must have adequate resources to address the inflationary increase for law journal subscriptions and 

the purchase of new treatises so that it can build and maintain its 

unique collections for the benefit of users throughout the Nation 

and the world. 

Second, the completion of the class K reclassification project. The 

K Classification is the system developed by the Library of Congress 

and followed by most law libraries throughout the country to categorize and organize legal research materials by subject. The Library of Congress completed the K Classification for legal materials 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

69 

from all jurisdictions in 2002. Now the Law Library must be funded to reclassify 680,000 volumes into the K Classification scheme. 

While this may seem, on the surface, to be an esoteric system, 

it is vital to making the rich collections of the Law Library available. Without reclassification, these important resources cannot be 

readily located within the Library’s collection and, therefore, are 

not accessible to researchers and the public. It would be a sad irony 

if the creator of this almost universal system is unable to fully utilize the system for its own collections due to lack of funding. 

My long statement stresses the significant financial challenges 

the Law Library has faced over the past decade. We do not believe 

the Law Library can fulfill its vital mission under the current funding arrangement. Therefore, we recommend that this committee explore the possibility of a statutory change that would give the Law 

Library of Congress a line item in the Federal budget. This would 

place the Law Library on the same level as the Congressional Research Service and the U.S. Copyright Office, both of which are 

also part of the Library of Congress. It would allow the law librarian of Congress to manage the Law Library’s budget to decide how 

the annual appropriations are best spent and, very importantly, to 

be directly accountable to the Congress. We believe an additional 

benefit would be a higher level of visibility for the Law Library, including with Members of Congress and their staffs. 

Law libraries of the United States and throughout the world look 

to the collections and services of the Law Library of Congress as 

a base of growing importance in completing their own missions. We 

hope that the committee will work closely with the House Appropriations Committee and others to investigate the steps needed to 

give the law librarian of Congress authority over the Law Library’s 

annual budget. 

Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Fessenden follows:] 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

70 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 98 40620A.050
71 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 99 40620A.051
72 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 100 40620A.052
73 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 101 40620A.053
74 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 102 40620A.054
75 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Meyers, we have a vote but I would like to 

try to get your testimony, And then we will have to leave and we 

would come back and hear the other two witnesses and have some 

questions for you. 

STATEMENT OF TEDSON MEYERS, ESQ. 

Mr. MEYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You might get three. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ehlers, members of the committee. 

I appear on behalf of the American Bar Association at the request 

of its President, William Neukom. 

Since 1932, the ABA has had a formal relationship with the Library of Congress and its Law Library through our Standing Committee on the Law Library of Congress, which I have chaired for 

the past 7 years. The testimony at today’s hearing touches on some 

of the vital functions that the Law Library provides and indeed 

must provide in support of its mission. 

Among them has been the launch of a digitized pool of statutes 

and other legal information from a growing number of contributing 

nations, embodied now in GLIN, the Global Legal Information Network. As such, the Law Library of Congress is now recognized in 

its 175th year as an anchor for the rule of law worldwide. 

That it accomplishes so much it is really remarkable. With over $2.5 million volumes, it is the world’s largest law library, comprising at least 12 percent of the entire collection held by the Library of Congress, yet less than 3 percent of the budget of the Library of Congress is allocated to the Law Library’s work. There are 

significant consequences for that allocation of resources, and I believe you have heard some of them already. 

One-third of the Law Library’s volumes have remained 

uncataloged, accessible only to select Law Library staff. Save for 

special funds made available by the Congress a few years ago, the 

Law Library would still be without adequate resources fully to implement the model K classification system. The Law Librarian of 

Congress, Dr. Rubens Medina, often remarks: The law demands an 

unforgiving margin of currency. Yet there have been moments 

when qualified observers feared the Law Library of Congress was 

at risk of becoming a museum. Up until recently, arriving documents were made available to the public only after a year or more 

rather than the standard Law Library practice of no more than a 

week. 

Other consequences, turnover in Law Library senior staff and 

their institutional knowledge has understandably led to a drop in 

efficiency as new staff is trained, and it has also impeded proper 

classification. Combined with the escalating cost of acquisition and 

preservation of new volumes and scholarly periodicals, it is apparent that portions of the Law Library’s collections are slowly falling 

beyond its access or ability to protect it. 

Administrative and financial practices within the Library of Congress contribute to the Law Library’s plight. Resource priority and 

allocation remain in the hands of senior administrators of the Library of Congress. Catalog delay is a symptom of that process. Personnel are detailed to the Law Library at intervals and levels decided elsewhere. This is the case even under the inspiring leadership of Dr. James Billington, who understands fully the opportuniwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

76 

ties offered by digitized information and is a world leader in pressing for its implementation. Nevertheless, the Library of Congress 

administrators are mindful of their obligations to wide and varied 

sectors of the American public for whom availability of the latest 

in other pursuits other than law, whether intellectual or recreational, are of supreme importance. 

Over the past 30 years, the ABA has on five occasions adopted 

formal resolutions intended to address these and related challenges. The first such resolution adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in 1979 countered an effort by the Library of Congress’ then 

Director of Library Services to terminate the Law Library of Congress as its own department and make it a department under the 

Division of Library Services. The result of that effort was a letter 

from the Chair of the Oversight Committee, reminding that the 

status and location of the Law Library were matters for decision 

only by the United States Congress. 

In the early 1990s, a similar resolution was sponsored by former 

Senator Charles Mathias, then Chair of our Standing Committee. 

It proposed transition of the Law Library into a National Law Library to serve the Nation in the manner and spirit of the highly 

regarded National Library of Medicine. 

Those ABA positions have never been formally abandoned, but 

we are not advocating them at this time. Instead, as you heard before, we invite the committee to consider a solution urged by Senator Ted Stevens and others that the Congress create an independent line item for the Law Library of Congress in the Federal 

budget. That way Congress could ensure that the funding intended 

to target the chronic issues facing the Law Library could be used 

specifically for that purpose, promoting fiscal transparency and accountability to the Congress. Moreover, with clear understanding of 

the Federal contribution, others can be solicited as financial partners in the Law Library’s work. 

We are respectful of the Library of Congress’ historic opposition 

to this line item position. We suggest, however, that an emerging 

national objective should now weigh on the matter. As American 

corporations have discovered, the Law Library of Congress has become the mother lode of reliable information on foreign and comparative law. It is precisely those fields to which a growing number 

of lawyers, government and private, are turning to support American enterprise abroad, as well as foreign investment here at home. 

New business establishments, labor laws, transportation rules, 

even the cultural status of the rule of law—these areas are uniquely within the knowledge of selected Law Library staff, the staff 

whose looming succession can best be implemented with assured 

budget sums at hand. A line item for the Law Library will achieve 

that goal. 

You can also achieve stability for GLIN. An element of Dr. 

Billington’s powerful initiatives for information’s digital future, 

GLIN has been well understood by Members of Congress as a way 

to monitor government solutions in other lands. Targeted in recent 

years was GLIN’s transition to a private foundation funded by its 

growing number of member nations. However, GLIN’s accelerated 

growth has made that transition for the moment impractical. 

Therefore, contingent funding has been sought in order to safely 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

77 

cross the bridge without losing momentum. A body of advisers is 

serving under Honorable William Sessions to assist the new Global 

Legal Information Network Foundation. Judge Sessions is in the 

hearing room today and I am honored to serve on his team. 

We respectfully request that the ABA’s full formal statement be 

made part of the hearing record. As noted, that statement constitutes the official view of the American Bar Association. I would 

ask, however, that unless confirmed as the position of the ABA, 

that you consider any of my responses to questions to go beyond 

that statement to be considered only my own views. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We now need to take about a half 

hour recess and we will come back and hear the other two witnesses and ask some questions. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rettig, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. RETTIG 

Mr. RETTIG. Thank you, Chairman Brady. And on behalf of the 

over 66,000 members of the American Library Association, we 

thank the committee for scheduling this hearing and for this opportunity to testify. 

This is an important time to review the ongoing initiatives at the 

Library. While its first function is to serve the Congress, it also 

serves as the de facto national library affecting libraries of all types 

across the country and around the world. The Library’s tremendous 

collections, preservation projects, cataloging and bibliographic functions and its initiatives in moving library services into the digital 

world make it a world-class resource upon which all types of libraries rely in some fashion. 

As the largest and oldest library association in the word, ALA 

appreciates the complexities faced by an institution with limited resources as it makes decisions about digitization of materials and 

how best to manage evolving technologies’ potential for innovation. 

In addition to cataloging and classification services that I will 

comment on today, ALA also recognizes the critical importance of 

other key Library of Congress functions, including the national library service for the blind and physically handicapped and the 

pending report from the Copyright Office’s Working Group on Section 108. 

All libraries face difficult decisions as they move ever deeper into 

the digital world. At the Library of Congress, these decisions have 

a special impact on all types of libraries and their users. More than 

ever, it is essential for the Library of Congress to work collaboratively with the library community. The Library’s influence is especially critical in the cataloging and classification arena because 

for more than a century it has provided leadership in the development of international standards for bibliographic access to library 

materials. The Library of Congress cataloging records comprise the 

largest single body of bibliographic records shared by libraries 

across the Nation. These records provide the means by which every 

library, whether it is a public library, school library, corporate library or some other, these provide users with tools to find resources in those libraries’ collections. The catalog in the Library of 

Congress that it makes available to the Nation’s libraries is one of 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

78 

its most important national functions. Congress funds the Library 

of Congress to perform these functions on behalf of the Nation’s libraries and ALA support for this funding remains steadfast. 

It is unfortunate that we cannot address the final report of the 

Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. I understand that its report will go public next week. This working group 

is expected to present findings on how bibliographic control and 

other descriptive practices can support the ways Library materials 

are managed and used in an evolving information and technology 

environment. 

Advances in search engine technology, the popularity of the 

Internet and the influx of electronic information resources have 

greatly changed the ways people seek information and the ways libraries do business. Inevitably on the Internet, with its huge and 

ever increasing amount of digital information, general search engines must be relied upon. In years to come, there may be far more 

sophisticated search engines, but we are certainly not there now. 

Over-reliance on these relatively young digital tools coupled with 

cut backs in cataloging services compromises access to vast 

amounts of information that has traditionally been cataloged. Libraries as the consumers of the Library of Congress’ cataloging 

products must rely on the traditional cataloging services in order 

to meet the needs of their users. These cataloging consumers, including four-year and community colleges, public and school libraries, as well as large research institutions, must utilize the Library 

of Congress’ cataloging in order to serve their users. It would be 

too costly and inefficient for every library to duplicate this cataloging. 

Hence, as the Library of Congress cuts its cataloging services, 

appearing to want to rely ever more on general search engines, 

these libraries and cataloging consumers cannot meet their users’ 

needs. This disparity must be bridged by the continuation of cataloging services to meet the needs of the U.S. public. This is especially so when unilateral and sudden changes in cataloging practices initiated by the Library of Congress and others cut off access 

to bibliographic tools still needed by so many libraries. 

ALA strongly recommends that the Library of Congress return to 

its former practice of broad and meaningful consultation prior to 

making significant changes to cataloging policy. We also ask that 

the Library of Congress factor the potential financial impact on all 

types of libraries and the impact on library users that such changes 

may cause. 

ALA further recommends that there be a regular system of meetings of representatives of the Library of Congress, ALA and other 

bodies with relevant expertise and responsibilities, such as the Online Library Computer Center, the Association of Research Libraries, the National Library of Medicine, the National Agricultural Library and the Government Printing Office, to discuss future shared 

responsibilities and roles of these libraries in leadership and standards development for bibliographic control and intellectual access 

and in the creation and provision of quality bibliographic records. 

ALA and others in the Library community stand ready to work 

with the Library of Congress and with the Committee on House 

Administration and others on these important efforts. We recwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

79 

ommend that the committee continue its oversight by addressing 

the above issues and by ongoing monitoring of unilateral cataloging 

changes made by the Library of Congress. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

[The statement of Mr. Rettig follows:] 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

80 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 122 here 40620A.063
81 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 123 here 40620A.064
82 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 124 here 40620A.065
83 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 125 here 40620A.066
84 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 126 here 40620A.067
85 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 127 here 40620A.068
86 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 128 here 40620A.069
87 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 129 here 40620A.070
88 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Schornagel. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KARL W. SCHORNAGEL 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. I am pleased to be able to address with you 

today the issue of the controls the Library has placed over its collections. The Library estimates that it possesses over 135 million 

items, some dating back several centuries. 

A cornerstone of the Library’s stewardship of the nations knowledge is its collections security program. A series of thefts and mutilations of collection items in the 1990s caused the Library to 

rethink its posture on collection security and inventory controls, 

two items that are closely interrelated. Initially the Librarian 

closed the stacks both to the public and to most of the staff. Later 

the Library created and implemented a comprehensive collections 

security plan. 

One of the key elements in collections security is maintaining an 

accurate and complete inventory of what is to be secured. Unfortunately, because of the age and vastness of the collections, no inventory exists. The Library recognized this problem and embarked on 

a multiyear effort to inventory its collections. The baseline inventory program, or BIP, this program began in fiscal year 2002. 

It is important to recognize that unlike Wal-Mart, which was designed from the ground up with inventory control in mind, the Library was designed with access to the collections as its primary 

purpose. The systems that the Library had used since its inception 

are designed to create cataloging information, not inventory 

records. Most items that come into the Library are cataloged but 

not all are added to the collections. The Library used and continues 

to use a variety of manual and automated systems to keep track 

of those items which are actually added to its inventory, but no single integrated approach which would combine circulation information with bibliographic data existed. The Library adopted the integrated library system, ILS, as a solution to this problem. 

In order to be useful, an automated system must be populated 

with valid data. The Library loaded all of its cataloging information 

into the ILS, thus building a database of everything the Library 

has cataloged. The next step in the process was the BIP. The Library’s ongoing physical inventory of its collections will update the 

ILS, which will then maintain a permanent and dynamically updated record of each item in the collections. The BIP is therefore 

the cornerstone to this integrated approach. At the current time, 

the BIP has inventoried a portion, roughly 20 percent, of its target, 

which includes 17 million items from the general, law, and area 

studies collections. The Library’s very special collections are inventoried to various degrees by other means. 

Progress on the BIP has been slow; nevertheless, I do not believe 

that this has significantly impaired the Library’s ability to secure 

its collections. I base my opinion on two sets of facts. First, my confidence in the Library’s comprehensive collections security program, a program encompassing a series of policies, procedures, the 

Collections Security Oversight Committee, exit inspections, in addition to special security for special collections. Second, my office has 

conducted several reviews of the subject over the years. In our 2001 

report on collection security, we found that the Library had taken 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

89 

strong action to provide an effective internal control structure over 

safeguarding library materials. Further, we have performed many 

reviews designed to verify the existence and condition of certain 

collections beginning in 1999. The last one we did was in 2006. No 

significant issues have emerged as a result of those reviews. Therefore, on the whole, I believe that the current collection security controls are functioning effectively. 

Finally, the Library is unique among institutions and is asserting in its financial statements that it does not have control over its 

collections. This is not currently a required assertion. Moreover, 

the Library’s inability to completely and accurately account for its 

assets is not unique among institutions which have custody of heritage assets. At this time, we note that in 2006, the national archives and records administration had a material weakness in its 

collections security program. Additionally, the National Forest 

Service, which like the Library is the custodian of stewardship assets, only estimates its inventory. 

None of this is intended to diminish the importance for the accounting of one’s assets. However, I believe that a balance must be 

struck between the allocation of scarce resources and the need for 

inventory data. Clearly, control over the collections is one of the 

cornerstones of the Library’s operations. At the current time, however, I believe the overall system of controls is adequately designed 

and generally functions as intended. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Schornagel follows:] 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

90 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 134 40620A.071
91 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 135 40620A.072
92 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And thank all of you for your participation and your testimony. 

Mr. Ehlers, any questions. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the delay 

in getting back. Too many constituents with questions. 

I was struck in listening to the testimony, particularly from the 

first three witnesses, all of you seem to have the same refrain, that 

the Law Library is one of the greatest in the world but it doesn’t 

have enough money. And several of you also suggested that this 

could be settled by having a line item. In the older days, that may 

have been true. I am not sure a line item means as much as it used 

to. And it has also become harder and harder to get money in line 

items. So clearly there is—if you want to run properly for your purposes, it is clear that there is going to have to be more money. 

Normally libraries never charge fees for the use of their services. 

That is a tradition of libraries. However, I would comment that the 

attorneys are—and the users of the Law Library are probably the 

only major group that actually use it as a resource to advance their 

income and their business. Would it be unreasonable to have some 

program that required reimbursement for use or that would at the 

very least solicit donations from the attorneys who make regular 

use of the Law Library, the Library of Congress as an additional 

way to acquire some funds for that? 

Let me just go down the line. Mr. Orton, you have been in the 

congressional arena, although you left before the really tight money 

occurred. But you lived through enough years to know how difficult 

it is to get additional money out of the Congress. 

Mr. ORTON. You are correct. A line item in and of itself doesn’t 

solve any problems. All it does is identify specifically where resources are allocated and then that provides a mechanism for accountability, which I believe is an important component but it is 

not the solution. It will require Congress to step forward and adequately fund the mission. If Congress wants the Library to properly 

conduct its mission and wants it to solve the problems that have 

arisen, Congress is going to have to provide the resources necessary 

to pay for the solutions to those problems. 

Now, if Congress is not willing to do that, then Congress needs 

to accept the results, which means the Library is—you can’t merely 

cut out one or two functions of the Library. It is an integrated system. You can’t cut out acquisitions. You can’t cut out shelving. You 

can’t simply cut out portions of the Library. It is a functioning library. If you want to turn it into a museum like the Smithsonian, 

you can do that but then you don’t have a functioning Law Library. 

So if Congress is not willing to step up, Congress is going to lose 

its Law Library. If they are not willing—and we have found in the 

Bar Association that Congress has been very slow to solve many of 

these problems and so we have been struggling with ways to try 

to come up with additional resources. We believe that there is a 

certain level of services that Congress should provide, a base level 

of services that the Library is currently providing, which it should 

continue to provide for the Congress, for the public. But we believe 

there are other expanded services, and we would be happy to provide you with a list of additional services that we believe are critical and necessary which the Law Library could provide and we bewwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

93 

lieve that the bar and other libraries around the country would be 

willing to participate in funding. 

But it is difficult, and we have been out and discussing this with 

members of the bar and saying would you be willing to fund these 

services. They have indicated yes, but there is a basic concern that 

if they start providing funding into the institution, there is a concern that money is fungible and as private money starts coming in 

in a period where Congress is tight with budget caps, does Congress then start reducing its money? 

That is one of the reasons that it was suggested to us that a line 

item would be inappropriate insurance to the private funding 

mechanisms, that they know how much money is coming in from 

the government, they then would be—have a greater sense of assurance that money that they would be putting in to fund these additional services would actually go for the intended purpose. 

I don’t know that that is the only way to do it. I mean, we are 

struggling like you. We believe that funding should be coming in 

from private sources. We believe that it is there, it is available. We 

would like to work with the committee, with the Library to find the 

proper mechanisms so that private resources could be found to help 

the Library to get out of the problems it is in and to be able to provide these additional services we think are so critical. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you for that answer. And just very quickly, 

Ms. Fessenden, do you agree with the thrust of the response? 

Ms. FESSENDEN. Yes, I would agree that there is no guarantee 

that a line item is the solution to the problems. However, we are 

concerned that the very unique resources and the very unique role 

of the Law Library of Congress in the legal research and the legal 

community is recognized and that it has a stature such that it receives adequate resources to maintain those functions. 

I also would just like to mention the Law Library community 

very much values the services of the Library of Congress in cataloging, and so forth, that Mr. Rettig talked about, and we think 

that is very important and value those services as well and would 

not want to have to replicate them in the Law Library. 

Finally, regarding private funding, there may be instances when 

certain enhanced services would be appropriate for a fee for service 

type of approach. But in general, the American Association of Law 

Libraries feels it is very important that the services of our national 

institutions like the Law Library of Congress and access to legal 

information be available freely to the general public. And it isn’t 

just attorneys that use the Law Library, pro se litigants may also 

be an important part of that. We certainly would not want anyone 

to not have access to legal materials that they need because of a 

fee for service situation. 

Mr. EHLERS. Let me just respond to the line item issue. A good 

way to sell the line item would be to say that we will make this 

a matching fund, that the law community would provide a certain 

amount of money and the Congress would match it and they both 

would be placed in a line item. The Library is never going to have 

the money it needs. We wouldn’t have this fuss about the inventory 

if we provided them an extra 20, $30 million a year. But there is 

always shortages for even the best things that we do in this Congress. And it is a situation you have to live with. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

94 

Mr. Meyers, did you want to add anything to this? 

Mr. MEYERS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Ehlers. I agree completely with 

what you have heard so far. There is value in the line item in several other respects. One is the transparency of getting a clear picture of how resources are spent. There is one other element, however. Increasingly as we talk about the Law Library—and again 

this is one man’s opinion. Speaking to it among lawyers, corporate 

law departments, law firms—maybe because law has become so important in our daily lives and in our business lives, there is a perception about the Law Library that even though it is the property 

of the American people, that house is our house and it is critical 

that we look after it. So opening up discussions toward a way that 

lawyers, law firms, law departments can contribute to the cost of 

special services is a dialogue that I think we are willing to undertake. 

Mr. EHLERS. To use your language, if it is your house, then we 

would like to have some house payments, too. No subprime mortgages. 

So thank you for your comments. I think there is some room to 

work here, but it could take a good deal of time to work it out. 

Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence in letting me roar on for so long. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I always appreciate being in a room 

where I understand some attorneys are going to contribute something, especially when it is their money. I thank all the witnesses, 

thank you for being here. Thank you for your participation and 

your testimony. 

Mr. Ehlers, do you have anything else? 

Mr. EHLERS. I think one other question has come up, but I think 

we can address it privately with Dr. Billington, which I will do by 

notes so that will be part of the record. And I do want to thank 

Mr. Schornagel for your work. We depend heavily on your work 

and we have been quoting you even as the Washington Post misquoted the second half. But we appreciate your good work and your 

guidance. Mr. Rettig, thank you for being here, too. 

The CHAIRMAN. With the exception of one sidebar, this hearing 

is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[The information follows:] 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

95 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 109 40620A.055
96 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 110 40620A.056
97 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 111 40620A.057
98 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 112 40620A.058
99 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 113 40620A.059
100 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 114 40620A.060
101 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 115 40620A.061
102 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS


Insert graphic folio 116 40620A.062