defense, demography, natural resources and other subjects, 9 at grades GS-7 to 11 and 2 at GS-13) and 13 support positions (reference assistants, subprofessionals, typists, clerks and messengers, at grades GS-2 to 8, and 1 bibliographer at GS-11). The support positions include an inquiries recorder, a photocopy assistant, a Congressional document assistant, and other positions essential to the research and housekeeping services which have been seriouly impaired by the growth in the Service's volume and workload.

EFFECTS OF PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION AOT OF 1967

The recommendations with respect to the Legislative Reference Service made by the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, which have been incorporated in the pending Legislative Reorganization Act of 1967, will, if enacted into law, have a very significant effect on future workload and on staff requirements. Thus, the recommendations that LRS undertake anticipatory studies of issues of probable Congressional interest, that it undertake much more extensive liaison with committees, that it be required to prepare legislative histories of virtually all bills which are the subject of committee hearings, that it be authorized to engage outside consultants and organizations and panels of experts, etc., all point to enlarged areas of research activity. The present budget request (for fiscal 1968) does not include any funding to implement staff for these expanded services because the bill has not yet been enacted. The primary consideration underlying the present request is the second phase of the two-year program to strengthen staff to enable the Service to provide prompt, effective and high quality research assistance to Members in light of the current workload and legislative responsibilities.

REORGANIZATION BILL PROPOSALS ON LRS

Mr. ANDREWS. What, precisely, did the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress recommend with regard to the Legislative Reference Service?

Mr. JAYSON. They added quite a number of new responsibilities to the Service. First, let me say I am very pleased with the report of the joint committee because it represents a vote of confidence in the work we are doing. But among the new functions their bill would require us to undertake are the following:

First, it would require that we undertake anticipatory studies for Members of Congress with regard to issues of probable or potential interest. At the present time our reports are prepared only on a request basis. The joint committee thinks it would be helpful if at the beginning of each Congress we had reports prepared covering public problems that may be of interest to the Congress, thus anticipating requests.

Second, they asked us to expand or extend very greatly our liaison with the various committees. At the present time we have extensive liaison with some committees but not with all committees. Experience shows that if we have a man very close to a committee it generates a great deal of requests for research, and properly so. The joint committee asked us to extend that liaison.

Third, the Joint Committee, as I mentioned in connection with automation the other day, has requested us to prepare a legislative history of every bill scheduled for a committee hearing whenever requested by a Member, and to indicate at the same time what bills of a similar nature are pending before the Congress, what bills like it were before previous Congresses, and what happened to them.

Another provision would authorize the Service to contract for outside consultants, experts and research organizations, so that where we have an instance of temporary legislative importance, for example, we

could contract for an expert for a year or several years. For example, last year engineering automotive safety was a very important and urgent issue. This year the issue is still a major one but not quite as pressing as last year. I suppose in 2 or 3 years the matter will be resolved legislatively. It would not be economical for us to put a highpriced automotive engineer on the payroll on a permanent basis. Under the authorization proposed by the joint committee we could hire him for 1 year, or for the period when he is needed to assist Congress.

Mr. YATES. Do you not do that now? I notice you did a study for the Small Business Committee of the House on monopolies, a 500-page treatise. Why would it not have been cheaper to farm this out to some law school, for example?

Mr. JAYSON. We do very little farming out. There are occasions when we bring in an expert for, say, 3 months on a particular matter, but this is rare. First, we do not have the funds to farm out; and secondly, there is the time element. Members of Congress or the committees are usually very hard pressed for the material they request.

Mr. YATES. How long did it take you to do this study on monopolies ? Mr. JAYSON. Several months. I think if we had turned it over to a law school it would have taken longer, generally speaking. I have compared notes with people in the State legislative reference bureaus who have worked with their local universities and they have said that frequently an outsider does not know the practical needs of the legislature. It may be that under direct supervision by the Legislative Reference Service, as recommended by the reorganization bill, we will be able to do this with universities or perhaps with local law schools, particularly in regard to anticipatory studies. I would hope we could. But generally the kind of reports we prepare for the committee are needed very hurriedly and there is not time to negotiate with an outside organization.

Finally, the reorganization bill provides for the Legislative Reference Service to engage more extensively in automation in order to assist the Congress.

QUESTION OF DUPLICATIVE WORK BY COORDINATION OF INFORMATION

Mr. ANDREWS. Are you familiar-I am sure you are-with the Office of the Coordinator of Information of the House?

Mr. JAYSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. What work does that Office do that you do not do or that could not be done by your Service?

Mr. JAYSON. I am not familiar enough with the inner workings of the Office of the Coordinator of Information to speak authoritatively on what they are doing.

Mr. ANDREWS. Is there any duplication of effort between that Office and your Service?

Mr. JAYSON. It is my understanding, from some of the statements the Coordinator of Information has made, that the emphasis of that Office has been on spot news and on keeping tab on legislation as it moves through the House.

Mr. ANDREWS. I believe you told us you put out a digest showing the status of legislative bills?

Mr. JAYSON. Yes, but he talks in terms of the day-to-day situation, what committee meetings are being held, what bills are being considered, and so on.

Mr. ANDREWS. Does he put out any publications that you know of? Mr. JAYSON. I do not know. The Coordinator, of course, has a small staff. He is located right in the Capitol, which we envy because an office there might facilitate our work. In the light of the expansion of the services provided to the Congress by the Legislative Reference Service over the last 20 years, I would not say we could not handle additional services.

Mr. ANDREWs. Our information is that the reorganization bill recommends that the Office of the Coordinator of Information be abolished or transferred.

Mr. JAYSON. It recommends that it be absorbed by the Legislative Reference Service.

Mr. ANDREWS. Would your Service be able to absorb the functions and duties now performed by the Coordinator of Information?

Mr. JAYSON. If the Congress asked us to do it, I would hope we would be able to do it, Mr. Andrews.

Mr. ANDREWS. You would be able to notify Members when they had a tornado in the district or a train wreck?

Mr. JAYSON. I think he is doing that successfully.

Mr. ANDREWSs. He said he was.

Mr. JAYSON. The bill also has a saving provision to the effect that his staff would be absorbed by the Legislative Reference Service, so that people now doing that function conceivably might continue to do it under LRS.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Yates.

WORKLOAD FLUCTUATIONS

Mr. YATES. I want to go back to my question. What is the total amount requested for the Legislative Reference Service?

Mr. JAYSON. $3.4 million.

Mr. YATES. And that is to be used primarily to pay the salaries of 301 permanent employees?

Mr. JAYSON. 304.

Mr. YATES. Plus such temporary employees as may be hired from time to time?

Mr. JAYSON. No; they would be included.

Mr. YATES. How many temporary employees would be included?

Mr. JAYSON. There is a provision for $25,000 included in that amount which represents the equivalent of five additional employees, but from savings accrued through the turnover in staff-people called to military service, for example, whose positions cannot be filled-we hire additional temporary employees. I do not think we have ever had as large a staff on hand by the addition of temporaries as we have at the present time.

Mr. YATES. I have no objection to temporaries because I think it is the nature of the business. Congress is not in session during the entire year, although it was in session almost the entire year last year. Mr. JAYSON. As you say, Congress is generally in session until October, but despite this fact, as the chart reflects, the intake of our workload, the hard core work we do throughout the year, the Members'

work, stays pretty stable. When Congress is out of session the workload does not decrease much, strangely enough.

Mr. YATES. Why is that? I would have thought most Members went home during the recess.

Mr. JAYSON. But the staff remains here and they are beginning to think about what will happen 2 months from now when Congress reconvenes. I have some figures which show that the Member and committee inquiries vary on a monthly basis from 4,000 to 5,500, going down a bit in December but staying pretty steady most of the year,

WORK FOR CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES

Mr. YATES. I notice from a series of reports that you have brought with you, three major reports that have been prepared for the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences. It must have taken an enormous amount of time for your staff to prepare them.

Mr. JAYSON. Several months in each case. And let me bring out this further fact: The committees that have to do with the Library's administration have given us authority to seek reimbursement from those committees that request work requiring more than 60 or 90 days of a man's time. This particular Senate committee has been in a position to reimburse us partly for some of the work done. This gave us last year a total of about $35,000 reimbursement money from various committees. So that while the regular staff was tied up in this project we could use that money to put on temporaries.

Mr. YATES. What portion of your work comes from committees and what portion from individual Members of Congress?

Mr. JAYSON. During fiscal year 1966 we had something like 56,000 inquiries from Members and committees combined. Of that amountI am talking now only of numbers; you will recall that we discussed the difference between an inquiry for which a quick response could be made by a telephone call and one that required a report such as you have before you; numberwise they are the same.

Mr. YATES. But one takes more time than the other?

Mr. JAYSON. Yes. We had a total of 56,000 Member and committee requests. Of that number, our records show 47,000 were from Members and roughly 9,000 were from committees. I must emphasize even here that a Member's request may be really a committee request. For example, if you called for information in connection with this hearing, you need it for committee work but we would record it as a Member request. Our records show we had roughly 9,000 committee requests last year.

WORKLOAD STATISTICS, 1964-67

This chart breaks down our total inquiries by their source and the percentage of total research time required to respond, from fiscal 1964 through March 1967. May I submit this for the record? The columns to look at for fiscal 1966 are this third group.

Mr. YATES. May this be inserted in the record?

Mr. ANDREWS. Without objection, it will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The chart is as follows:)

Percent of research and reference time by source of inquiries and form of answer, fiscal 1964 to fiscal 1967 (through March)

Mr. JAYSON. During fiscal 1966 the Member inquiries represented 65.3 percent of our total research and reference time. The committee inquiries represented 17.8 percent of our total research and reference time.

Let me mention one other figure here. I have another chart showing inquiries handled during fiscal 1966 and the time elements involved, broken down by Member, committee, and constituent catgories.. Mr. YATES. This is the timesheet?

Mr. JAYSON. This will show how much time was absorbed in connection with our inquiries.

Mr. YATES. May this go in the record?

Mr. ANDREWS. Without objection, it will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The material referred to follows:)

78-653-67-34