CURTAILMENT OF CIA SUPPORT TO LIBRARY OF CONGRESS INDEXES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01139A000200110032-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: January 4, 2017
• Document Release Date: July 13, 2005
• Sequence Number: 32
• Publication Date: June 1, 1961
• Content Type: MF

C? ):X.11-D-84/1
i June 1961
SUBJECT: `C'uriailrn n I ':ITA 'Support to Library cif
Coni;rs i :iuiexe5
1. The attached CIA plan for nutting back its support of the Library of
Congress Monthly Index of Russiasi Acceseione (M!RA) and East dluoDS
Aceessio(ne Index (E4A1) was reviewed by the USIB Committee on Dooumes-
tion on ljdune. CODIB has agreed on the findings and interposed no objeC
to the re.bommendutiotb.
2. this paper is forwarded to the USIR for information.
3. Barring iuviaig & USIB em er raise a question concerning the pro-
posed action. CIA will begin implementation. The Librarian of Congress has
been so informed.
Attachment
25X
0,
 0
CODIB-D- 84/1
1 June 11*1
UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE BOARD
1. The Library of Congress Monthly Index of Russian Aoc ssian ( R*
issued since 1948, is a comprehensive record of post-World War U Sovtet
publications In all fields of knowledge received by the Library of Congr Ion and
some 200 other major libraries of the U.S. The East European Access#oas
Index (EEAI), published by the Library of Congress since 1952, lists-post-
World War Ii receipts by it and over 100 major libraries of the U.S. from
East European countries.
of the importance to intelligence of maintaining this publication at the tii ,e,
One of the by-products of the support was the biographic cards which fora
a basic part of the Biographic Register files in CIA, identifying authors of
articles as to place and type of research. CIA began support of the EEA
in Fiscal Year 1959. Although some financial support also was provided
for the preparation of the Indexes in Fiscal Years 1960 and 1961 by NSF,
AEC, and NASA. CIA no longer can justify major support under present
conditions.
C-O-N-F-I-D-F-N-T-I-A-L n
 0-,
?
CODIB-D-84/1
I June 1861
3. The pure a of thAa prier 10 to alert the intelligence Oom mualty4o
proposed curtat went action by CIA, and to furnish background Informads
that may be useful In deiermining it warse for future action. H
4. The oust to CIA for the first year of support to the MIBM (1550
$87. 845, increasing to $401.100 is FY 61; addttioasily $15.000 from
$10, 000 from AEC. and $25, 000 from NASA was required in FT 61 to
support the project.
5. Costs for CIA support to the EEAI were $254.154 in FY 58, rls
to $82, 600 for FY 81, plus $51. 000 from the National Science Foundation.
6. Comments on the utility and essentiality of both publications to The
work of COMB members were requested. In summary, MIRA is oon6l4,e -_
valuable by Army (willing to consider some funding). Navy, NSA. and Parts
of Air Force and CIA. There is strong preference for a oontinuation c a
modified MIRA over EEAI. With regard to the EEAI, Air Force. Aryl.
Navy. NSA and CIA have marginal interest in its continuation. The State,
Department would not be hurt were both publications discontinued. DO]).
FBI and JCS are not primary users of the publications. The National
Science Foundation sponsored a survey of the use made of the two
Indexes by 120 organtzations within a 300 mile radius of Washington
 CODIB+J>-84/1
1 June 1961
7. Intelligenoe needs for the two Indexes have changed. Al the peilnary
users have become more sophisticated, they have depended to as ingriai
extent on original source material. There is some library denond 1' con-
4
Unuation of the FEAI, but research use is negligible. The MiRA should be
adapted to meet changing requirements. For example, the bioSraphic'cards
have grown in importance from a by-product of the publications to the most
them to reconsider support of AGRA.
which buttreaa,ed their original decision not to aupport LEAL, and has boned
valuable part of the projects for CIA and it plans to continue support of
8. Two basic points should be considered before a decision is reached
Alternatives to these Indexes would be less professionally competent, and
far less comprehensive.
with regard to the continuation of the Library of Congress publications.
regarding the future of the two Indexes:
It the two publications were to cease entirely, a) what would be the effect
on the academic community in general and contractors specifically, and b)
what would the agencies now relying on the Indexes be required to spud: for
the issuance of their own accessions lists. We suspect that demand for such
lists would probably come from the very researchers who are now ap*thetie