NUMBER OF INVESTIGATIVE STAFF EMPLOYEES

Mr. ANDREWS How many people are currently being paid from special and select funds?

Mr. JENNINGS. 268 as of March 31, 1967.

Mr. ANDREWS. And they will be paid from this request of $4.7 million?

Mr. JENNINGS. That is right.

Mr. ANDREWs. Mr. Steed?

TOTALS FOR ALL COMMITTEE EMPLOYEES

Mr. STEED. Mr. Jennings, the items listed here under special and select committees are in addition to the item on page 18 of the committee print, which provides for committee employees?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir; those are "standing committees"; these are "special and select committees."

Mr. STEED. The request for committee employees is shown at $4.3 million, and the request for special and select committees is $4.7 million.

Mr. JENNINGS. A total of $9 million.

Mr. STEED. Making the total committee cost of $9 million per year; is that correct?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir; if they were all used.

Mr. STEED. The total for this item in 1960, as I compute it, was about $5.4 million. There have been pay increases since that time, but that would not account for all the increase between 1960 and 1968. Mr. JENNINGS. No, sir. The committees themselves, the standing committees, the personnel, have been increased above the normal 10, and in addition to that, by resolution more ad hoc, special, and select committees have been appointed and authorized and more employees are aboard.

For instance, in 1965 there were 255 employees, and in 1966 there are 305 employees, and as of March 31 there are 268 employees on the special and select subcommittees only.

Mr. STEED. I read in the newspaper where the new chairman was making substantial changes in the special and select committee activities of the Committee on Education and Labor. Are you in a position to tell us what impact that will have on this item under the present program?

Mr. JENNINGS. No, sir, not until such time as the bills are submitted. Then we will have a reflection, since they are just getting started, special and select and ad hoc committees. I can say there has been some reductions evidenced in the various committees.

Mr. STEED. Does not ad hoc mean one time only? So it would follow that the ad hoc items listed here would be not provided again in the new Congress, would they?

Mr. JENNINGS. No necessarily, but there may be others.

Mr. STEED. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Langen?

AMOUNTS AUTHORIZED AND EXPENDED

Mr. LANGEN. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that I quite understand the combination of expenditures we have before us for the past fiscal year as compared to the requests for the coming fiscal year.

On page 35, this would identify the authorization for these special and select committees for the 90th Congress or the year ahead of us or the year we are in now. Is that correct?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir, for the fiscal year.

Mr. LANGEN. Fiscal year?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. The authorization is for the calendar year for Congress and the appropriation is on a fiscal year basis, which is confusing.

Mr. LANGEN. But these authorizations would then be for the calendar year?

Mr. LIVINGSTON. That is right.

Mr. LANGEN. Then there has been identified that there might be some reductions in the expenditures of some of these committees, but at the same time the total seems to be $4,933,000 for this year as compared with $9.1 million for the 2 years of the 89th Congress which, to me, identifies a rather substantial increase.

Mr. JENNINGS. We are asking for an increase for the fiscal year of 1968 of $10,000.

Mr. LANGEN. But this figure would seem to imply there was an increase of almost $800,000.

Mr. JENNINGS. In the authorization.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. And this you will find is true in most cases because they do not often use the full authorization. Therefore, we take that into account.

Mr. LANGEN. At the same time, following the same column, it says amount authorized in the other instance, too. I am not talking about the expenditure; I am talking about the authorization. And the authorizations for the previous 2 years seems to be $800,000 less. So where are the reductions or where are the increases?

Mr. JENNINGS. We will have really no way of knowing. These are on vouchers that are submitted.

Mr. LANGEN. Just a minute. These are not on vouchers. We are talking about the first column which is the amount authorized, not the amount expended.

Mr. JENNINGS. The amount authorized was $9,149,250 through March 31, 1967.

Mr. LANGEN. This is what puzzles me. Do any of these authorizations end on March 31 of 1967?

Mr. JENNINGS. No, sir; they do not.

Mr. LANGEN. So what do those authorizations represent in that instance?

Mr. LIVINGSTON. In the 89th Congress the authorization ceases at January 2.

Mr. LANGEN. But actually, those authorizations run to July 1 of this year.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. They run until paid if the expenses had been incurred prior to January 2 of 1967. There can be no expenses incurred after that January 2.

Mr. LANGEN. But by the same token, the authorizations on page 35 supposedly represent 1 year's authorization?

Mr. LIVINGSTON. That is right.

Mr. LANGEN. Regardless of whether it says through March 31 of 1967 or not?

Mr. LIVINGSTON. These are the expenses for the 90th Congress. Mr. LANGEN. No; they are the authorizations for the 90th Congress, not the expenses.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. That is right.

Mr. LANGEN. Then on that basis, and with those authorizations being at $4,933,000, that will make, if they are at the same level for the next year, it will make a total of $9,866,000.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. That is right.

Mr. LANGEN. Which is a substantial increase.

Mr. JENNINGS. Right.

Mr. LANGEN. Over the 89th Congress.

Mr. JENNINGS. That is correct.

Mr. LANGEN. So in spite of the indication there might be some reduction in some committees somewhere else, they must have gone up; is that not correct?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir; this is true, and if you will check here you can see where they are. They are self-explanatory.

Mr. LANGEN. I do not see any big savings. Some discussion referred to the Education and Labor Committee at $1,150,000 for 2 years; the authorization here is $504,000, which will make a million and eight thousand.

Mr. JENNINGS. However, if they do not expend it, that amount will show up as a savings.

Mr. LANGEN. I fully appreciate that, but by the authorization they could well expend the full amount.

Mr. JENNINGS. That is correct; yes, sir.

Mr. LANGEN. I guess I have made my point. Thank you.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Andrews?

Mr. ANDREWS of North Dakota. Are these expenses coming about because of increased staffing or increased pay?

Mr. JENNINGS. Increased usage. I mean more and more people are being used, more committees are being formed and authorized. More investigations and ad hoc subcommittees are being formed and at a higher price.

Mr. ANDREWS of North Dakota. Let me rephrase my question.

Our friend from Minnesota pointed out quite well that there seems to be about a $700,000 increase in authorizations. How much of this $700,000 increase is due to the pay raises that were put into effect and how much of it is due to additional staffing?

Mr. JENNINGS. I do not know, Mr. Andrews, and it would be really an awfully hard thing to find out because you would be comparing oranges to apples. You cannot exactly tell on an ad hoc subcommittee that was formed this year how much more money it used than an ad hoe subcommittee that was formed last year for another purpose.

For instance, the one that Mr. Andrews referred to here, the Ad Hoc Subcommittee No. 7 on the poverty war program, which expended so far $243,263, I do not know what might be formed this year that would take the place of that ad hoc subcommittee. I do not know how much

that particular committee, if it is reformed, might expend nor do I know what additional committees might be, say in Banking and Currency, formed that would spend more or less money. So it would be difficult to compare or to determine the amount that was for additional employees as compared to pay increases, because these can all be on a different basis. It depends on the chairman of the committee.

Mr. ANDREWS of North Dakota. I am well aware of this, but in the interest of making a record so the public might know what is going on within their Congress, I cannot help but feel this is information that would be very interesting and helpful to them.

When the State Department or the Commerce Department testifies before us, they present a list of additional funds needed and then right alongside, additional positions. Sometimes they will need additional funds without any additional positions because of an arbitrary decision to increase pay which would give an entirely different feeling to the public than one where we are spending $800,000 for new positions.

I would suspect about half of the $800,000 would be taken up in pay raises and the other half might be additional positions. But this is just a wild guess because half would be about 42 percent and I think there is roughly about a 42-percent pay increase; is there not? Mr. JENNINGS. 2.9 percent.

Mr. ANDREWs of North Dakota. That was the last one.

Mr. JENNINGS. I would guess you are right, but you see what we would have to do is take each individual voucher and itemize them, and since we do not have computers we would just have to add them up and down each column and come up with the increases.

Mr. LANGEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWs of North Dakota. Yes.

INVESTIGATIVE AMOUNTS AUTHORIZED, 89TH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION, VERSUS 90TH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

Mr. LANGEN. I wonder if it would clarify the record if we could get a listing showing the authorization for each of the respective committees for the last year of the last biennial and for 1967. This way you could see whether there was a reduction or an increase in the authorization for any of the identified committees.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Clerk, will you get that information for the record?

Mr. JENNINGS. We can get that.

Mr. JENNINGS. The resolution will provide for a certain amount of money, but you will never know whether all of that money is going to be expended until such time as we get the vouchers.

Mr. LANGEN. I appreciate that. That would amount to a comparison of the authorization regardless of expenditures.

Mr. ANDREWS of North Dakota. The second session of the 89th Congress compared to the first session of the 90th Congress.

Mr. JENNINGS. Thus far. We have the authorization there.

Mr. ANDREWS of North Dakota. It is not broken down.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. I might say on the employees, as these committees request this money they have to submit their budget to the Committee on House Administration, they do not submit it to you. Then the Committee on House Administration authorizes the money and they have to justify it before that committee.

Mr. JENNINGS. I think we can give you what you want on the basis of the big committee, but we cannot break it down on the subcommittees because we do not know what subcommittees are going to be formed or have been formed.

Mr. LANGEN. You can give us a list which identifies the amount of money that makes up the totals we have just been talking about so we find out where the almost $800,000 increase is. That is not so complicated, I do not think.

Mr. JENNINGS. We have it right here. I will get with you and we will try to provide you with everything we have.

Mr. ANDREWS of North Dakota. You say you have it here. You are comparing horses and rabbits. You are comparing the full 89th session with the first session of the 90th. You do not show where the big increase is and where you are on a year-by-year basis. This is what we would like to have.

Mr. ANDREWS. Can you get that information and supply it for the record?