« PreviousContinue »
Mr. YATES. You have given us about 10 publications of various kinds as indicating your type of work. You must do hundreds of them, do you not?
Mr. Jayson. I would say this probably represents one-fifth of the printed reports prepared for committees last year. Literally thousands of other reports are prepared. For example, there are the multiliths that we distribute.
Dr. MUMFORD. There is one other point, Mr. Yates. I would like to make one other point in conection with Mr. Yates' suggestion that this kind of thing be done elsewhere. It is doubtful that they would have collections and materials that the Library of Congress has to draw upon. Very few places would have this or not as extensive as we do.
GRAPHIC ARTS WORK Mr. JAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have one other service that might be mentioned. We have on our staff a graphics specialist who provides illustrations for Members and for committee reports in the nature of maps, graphs, charts, and the like.
Mr. YATES. A statistician?
Mr. Jayson. Normally, the basic information is given to him by others. Mr. YATES. Assistant to a statistician.
Mr. Jayson. An economist comes to him with various statistics and tells him he wants something which will demonstrate it graphically and he will work with the economist on how to display it visually.
Mr. ANDREWS. He will prepare a chart for a Member to be used either on the floor of the House or a television program or anywhere the Member wants to use it.
Mr. Jayson. For example, for committee demonstration. He is very versatile. As you can understand, quite in demand.
DISTRIBUTION OF LISTS OF MULTILITHED REPORTS
Mr. YATES. One more question. These seem to be fairly authoritative studies as I peruse them. Are they accepted as such by the universities?
Mr. Jayson. Under the law we are not permitted to distribute these to anyone other than the Members and their committees. As a matter of fact, our appropriations bill every year contains a specific prohibition against our publishing anything other than the Digest of Public Bills. I feel confident that on the whole the Members and the committees regard these as authoritative. Frequently, the Members will distribute various of these reports to outside universities and outside experts and they are always highly regarded.
Mr. YATES. You have handed me a multilithed copy of a study that you made. Is there a list that is made of your multilithed studies?
Mr. Jayson. Every month this green sheet is distributed which lists the LRS multiliths of the past month. Recently we got up a consolidated green sheet which included all those that we had done, all those that we have listed during the past 18 months. I will be happy to give you one of those.
Mr. YATES. I would like that very much. Mr. Jayson. You must bear in mind that what appears on these green sheets is only an infinitesimal part of the work that we do.
This is simply a list of our multilith reports, reports that we feel are of such general interest to the Members that we should alert their offices to the fact that they are available.
Mr. YATES. I would think that the subject of Vietnam would have some attention at the present time.
Mr. JAYSON. So does reapportionment and precedents for the exclusion of Members. This is a consolidated index of the multiliths that were listed during the past 18 months. It was issued at the beginning of the session.
Mr. YATES. Have you prepared one on the exclusion of Members?' Mr. Jayson. Yes. This was one that received considerable distribution.
Mr. YATES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
DECLINE IN RESPONSES TO INQUIRIES, 1966 AS 1965 Mr. LANGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It has already been referred to but I stated a year ago it did not surprise me any to note the increased workload of the Legislative Reference Service and the need for that kind of service with the expanding Government and expanding Government services.
I suppose that has been brought clearly to us this morning. In reviewing the testimony that we have had, including the justifications: as they are supplied to us, I should be frank to admit that I find it a little puzzling. Before going into that let me further identify what I mean. I suppose this projects one of the real problems of Congress at the moment because we find the same thing is true in every congressional office. The staffs have grown and the workload has grown. The same thing is true of every committee. The staffs have grown and their workload has grown.
Mr. JAYSON. May I interject, Mr. Langen? Every time there is a broad increase of staff on the Hill it is reflected in our work because these people are busy with their work for the Members and they in turn come to us for assistance.
Mr. LANGEN. I can appreciate that. So then in giving evaluation to all of this I suppose that the pertinent item becomes to what extent does Congress benefit from your service, to what extent does the public benefit and, in turn, the Nation.
Looking at it from that standpoint, my attention is directed to page 146 of your justification and I find here some things kind of surprising. In fact, the preparation of this sheet I would say is typical of the excellence of the work that the Legislative Reference Division does. It presents a pretty good picture to this committee. I think it projects what is wanted to be projected to the committee, and is most misleading.
Let me point out what I mean. It surprises me, for instance, that during calendar year 1966—the number of inquiries when compared to the calendar year 1965—actually there has been a decrease in the number of inquiries in all instances except three; namely, translations, maps, and materials previously prepared.
Mr. Jayson. No, sir.
Mr. LANGEN. Just one moment now. This is, as identified here by your chart and as indicated in the columns for 1966 and 1965—
Oc benefit and benefit frohat the pe
Mr. JAYSON. Mr. Langen, you spoke in terms of a decrease in inquiries. I think you meant to speak in terms of responses to the inquiries.
Mr. LANGEN. All right, responses. It is all the same.
Mr. LANCON: No, sizght, responses
Mr. LANGEN. These are the responses that have been made. Actually there are decreases in those items with the exception of these three items. That leads me ask, what has prompted the increase in the number of responses to translations? What are all the translations for? This is something different from the field that I had been talking about before, which is the expanded government services. How come an increase in translations?
Mr. JAYSON. May I say first, during 1966, on the basis of totals we had more inquiries than we had in 1965. That is shown by the other tables. Mr. LANGEN. I will get to that in a moment.
Mr. JAYSON. Quite specifically with reference to translations, this involves a variety of types of materials that are sent to us by the Members and the committees. The committees, for example, will be dealing with foreign language pamphlets, foreign language newspapers, and the like, that they turn over to us to translate. This may be in the scientific field. It may be in the government operations field or otherwise. The Members individually may have foreign-speaking constituents and they receive mail from them written in foreign languages. They turn that over to us for translation.
There are occasions when Members deal with foreign governments and later receive mail from those foreign governments, or from foreign officials. That is turned over to us. That is the nature, broadly speaking, of the material that our translators handle. The intake, of course, is beyond the control of the Legislative Reference Service. It is referred to us by the Members. We have no say over what is sent to us.
Mr. LANGEN. I appreciate that and I appreciate what the chart implies. That is, the item of the largest increase is the matter of translations. Whether it is a comparison of 1966 to 1965 or a comparison of 1966 to 1964, we find that is increased by 62 percent. By far the highest. That is the highest of any other categories?
Mr. JAYSON. Numberwise, of course, it represents a little, say 4 percent of our total inquiries. In 1966 we had 3,665 translations as against a total workload of more than 114,000.
Mr. LANGEN. This is very true. By the same token in numbers there has been a decrease in the reports and memorandums by 1,000 as compared to an increase of 500 in translations. If you want to talk numbers we will, and say that your responses to drafts and memorandums are down by 1,000. This is why I say this is pretty well prepared.
Mr. Jayson. Mr. Langen, when you deal with reports and memorandums, one of our problems is that we have not had the time to get out the requested reports and memorandums. That is where we will often have to substitute materials. I notice that the materials figure has gone up. I do not say this is necessarily the explanation. It is a possible explanation.
Mr. LANGEN. I appreciate that and this is the point that does kind of surprise me. It seems that in view of your repeated references to the
extra workload, increases might well have been in other categories as compared to translations. The further increases are in materials previously prepared. Taking those two items, translations and materials previously prepared, accounts for the big part of the increase in the responses or the total workload done. Let me refer to the
Mr. Jayson. Mr. Langen, again, if you look at numbers you will see in the Member and committee inquiries, 1966 increase over 1965 was roughly 2,600.
Mr. LANGEN. Just a moment. We are talking about the work which is turned out. Yes, there has been some increase in those categories but where do they come from? When you categorize those responses later, those increases have got to be in the categories that show the increases down later on your chart which are; namely, materials previously prepared and translations because the total of the sources of inquiries as related to Members and committees is the same total that you have at the bottom of the page.
Any increases up there is reflected in two items; namely, translations and materials previously prepared. Now we look at the inquiries and there is some variation. We see an increase in the number of inquiries. There has been some little fluctuation back and forth, by your own estimate.
This is fiscal years as compared to the other which was calendar years. The fiscal year estimate shows a decline in the number of inquiries per position over 1966. As a matter of fact, it is down to just a trifle below what it was in 1962. The total number of inquiries, as per this estimate and related to the number of positions, has not shown a substantial increase. I just find it puzzling as I expected it to be otherwise.
Mr. JAYSON. Let me see if I can talk to this.
Mr. Jayson. When we deal with translations, we deal with a 15-percent figure increase of 1966 over 1965; that is, we are dealing with 15 percent of 3,175. That was the 1965 number of translations. Fifteen percent of that figure is roughly 450. We show a plus sign there. Move up to the Member and committee inquiries. There we are dealing with much larger numbers. There we show a 5-percent increase in numbers
Mr. LANGEN. Just one moment. This is not so complicated that you can not understand it. Those increases there that you are pointing to are accrued from the increases in translations and the increases in the materials previously prepared. They are exactly the same totals. By those categories you cannot deny that the reports and memoranda are down 12 percent. Draft statements are down 2 percent. Letters, 3 percent. The total of written material is down 4 percent. Telephones and in-person responses are down 4 percent. All of those are down. The only ones that are up are translations, maps, and materials previously prepared.
Adding up all of those they give you exactly the same total as those that you are using up here in the source of inquiries by Members and committees and constituents.
Mr. JAYSON. Let me see if
Mr. LANGEN. Even though the requests are down in 1966 over Mr. Jayson. Let me see if I can explain that. When you are dealing with percentages
Mr. LANGEN. Percentages have nothing to do with this. The point that I have made is that your increases are in translations, maps, and materials previously prepared. Forget the percentages. That is where the increases are, right?
Mr. Jayson. No, sir.
Mr. LANGEN. Member and committee requests. Remember now, again you are talking about responses, not requests.
Mr. Jayson. That is right.
Mr. LANGEN. The Member and committe responses are the total of the responses that you have done here.
Mr. JAYSON. That is correct.
Mr. LANGEN. That total includes each of these and when you analyze that total then you find that that total is made up of responses that have had increases in translations, maps, charts, and materials previously prepared. That is what gives you the increase in that figure. It can come from nowhere else.
Mr. Jayson. What I was trying to drive at is that 10 percent of 100, say as an illustration, is only 10; 1 percent of 1,000 is
Mr. LANGEN. You are just as right as can be. Let us use your percentage figures. I understand basic arithmetic, 12 percent of 8,265 is a greater figure than 15 percent of 3,000, which means that the number of reports and memoranda is down in numerical numbers much greater than the increase in the translations. Actually, there is 1,000 less or minus five. 995.
That is less responses to reports and memoranda, right?
Mr. Jayson. This is the result of not being able to provide the responses in the form of reports. It is a combination of things. Not being able to provide the types of reports and memos they want; and secondly, to some extent being able during this period, which is when we developed the multilithed report system, being able to respond by multilith, and these responses are included within the figures desig. nated as materials.
If you move to the other chart on page 151, you will see that in 1966, fiscal year, we had 117,000 inquiries, and you pointed to the figure which is designated "inquiries per position.” This is one of the statistics that I hate to see in this group, because it is not very meaningful. This figure is arrived at merely by dividing the total staff into the total number of inquiries.
You noted that in 1967 it went down, but that is the result of the 35 employees that you gave us last year. I would like to see it go down to the point where it was in 1947. This is why I say that in the 20-year period since 1947, the workload has gone up five times but the staff has not kept pace. The gap between the two is evident even if we use this statistic representing "inquiries per position;" it demonstrates that even with the increase we had last year we are still desperately far away from what we were 20 years ago.