Page images
PDF
EPUB

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. Where are they, then?

Mr. JAYSON. I would say in the Member and committee requests. 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. That is right. This is the result of

Mr. LANGEN. That is the thing that surprises me.

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.

Mr. LANGEN. This might well be. The statistics that we have before us are, by your own estimate, the number of inquiries on a per position basis for fiscal 1967, as estimated, which is not over yet.

Mr. JAYSON. We are trying to drive it down further through our 2year program.

Mr. LANGEN. In the pattern, as established by the figures, that you have before us, is it going to have increases in the coming fiscal year? I do not doubt but what you will have. If the pattern established between 1965 and 1966 is right, then I suppose a big additional workload is going to be in translations and the material already prepared. I had kind of been thinking a little more in terms of workload having increased in the category of the Government services that have multiplied. Whether it be because of the numerous programs that are coming into being on which there will be any number of inquiries Congress has a burden of determining whether they are working well and how they are applied to respective areas. I know these are not involved in translations.

Mr. JAYSON. Bear in mind one of the principal problems we have had, and one of the principal complaints we have had, relates to the quality of the work. We cannot improve quality unless there is more time available to our researchers.

Mr. LANGEN. By virtue of that, your quality should have been improved in 1966 because of those categories. You handled less of them.

INQUIRIES TURNED DOWN

Let me ask you another question. Did you ever have occasion to turn down any requests?

Mr. JAYSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANGEN. What is the nature of those turned down?

Mr. JAYSON. There are a good many requests we get which relate to particular Members of Congress. One Member wants the legislative record of another Member. This happens particularly as we approach election periods. We will not do research on a Member at the request of another Member unless the first Member gives his written

consent.

There are occasions where the deadline is just impossible to meet in view of the fact that the staff is already tied up and there we will call the office and explain to them the situation we are in.

As you know, our subject expertise is pretty thinly spread about. For example, we may have only one or two people who are experts in Southeast Asia and yet if a particular incident occurs there, resulting in much congressional interest, all of the inquiries will converge on those two experts. We have to turn down requests of that kind when we do not have sufficient manpower to handle them.

There are occasions where we discover that the request is really intended for a constituent and requires a good deal of research work. We don't do extensive research work for constituents so we decline that type of request.

Mr. LANGEN. Are there any instances in which the request was for work that ought to be done by the congressional staff to begin with? Mr. JAYSON. We are not in a position to know what instructions the congressional staff had. I would assume that when you are dealing with

figures like 117,000 inquiries per year there are times when we are doing something which a staff man should have been doing. This is inevitable when you do that volume.

Mr. LANGEN. I appreciate the vagueness and the difficulty of defining it. I am not so sure that I do not have some staff people that find it. easier to call up the Legislative Research Service and get the inquiries done than make the effort themselves.

TRANSLATION WORK

You got 35 new employees last year. How many of them were translators?

Mr. JAYSON. One, but we also have two temporary translators on hand. We added one permanent and two temporaries that we have been operating with this year.

Mr. LANGEN. With the addition of one translator, you handle the heavier workload in that field and 34 additional people in the other categories handled less work.

Mr. JAYSON. We have four translators on a permanent basis and we have two temporaries on hand at the present time. Among the new employees we are now asking for would be an additional translator. Dr. MUMFORD. Mr. Langen, may I add to that?

There are limitations imposed upon the amount of translation that will be done. The Joint Committee on the Library, several years ago, adopted a resolution to the effect that translations for constituents should be brief; namely, no more than a few lines of text.

Mr. LANGEN. You say they should be brief, such as a letter?

Dr. MUMFORD. Yes sir; limited to a very brief form. Not a whole book.

Mr. LANGEN. A book they wanted translated?

Dr. MUMFORD. No; we would not translate such a lengthy document. That is correct.

Mr. JAYSON. This translation service deals primarily with letters from constituents to Members of Congress. In recent times we have made agreements with various offices that send over letters for translation, agreements to provide mere summaries where that will be effective for the office use.

ESTIMATED INQUIRY WORKLOAD INCREASE IN 1968

Mr. LANGEN. What do you anticipate the increased workload to be for the coming fiscal year?

Mr. JAYSON. We estimate roughly 130,000 inquiries for fiscal 1968. This is based upon what we see on this chart.

Mr. LANGEN. Which will be 5,000 more than the estimate for fiscal year 1967?

Mr. JAYSON. Probably.

Mr. LANGEN. I inquire because of the increase in the total inquiries which is up 1 percent.

Mr. JAYSON. Yes. It is a little less than 1 percent, calendar 1966 over 1965, but calendar 1966 was up 23 percent over 1964.

Mr. LANGEN. But the increase in personnel that we granted last year was up over 10 percent.

Mr. JAYSON. When we set forth our request last year for a 2-year program to bring our staff up to approximately 300 people, we were talking about the workload in calendar 1965 as against 1964. That is the reason we set up in our charts here the 1964 figure. If you compare either calendar year 1966 or fiscal year 1967 against that earlier figure, you will see that we are still, at least as we figure it, very much understaffed.

Mr. LANGEN. This is the reason I raise the question. Obviously you based that request somewhat on the increase from 1964 to 1965. The increase was not comparable from 1965 to 1966, which surprises

me.

Mr. JAYSON. The increase over 1964 is a substantial basis for our present request. We felt you should see the whole picture, which is the reason we set forth the 1964 figures there.

Mr. LANGEN. It surprises me that it did not go up more. That is why I raise the question of what the anticipated increase may be for the coming year. That is the determining factor in adding further personnel.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANDREWS. We will see you gentlemen again Monday morning at 10 o'clock.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

COST OF CERTAIN STUDIES

Mr. YATES. Here is a document called the "Soviet Space Programs-1960-65." This is a staff report prepared for the use of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences of the U.S. Senate. It is a book of almost 1,000 pages. What would you say this study cost? Mr. JAYSON. This was prepared by, I believe, three of our senior people in the Legislative Reference Service, plus two people from other departments in the Library of Congress. The foreword would indicate that, Mr. Yates.

It is difficult for me to estimate this cost. Perhaps I can give you another illustration that will indicate the problem. Are you familiar with the "Constitution Annotated"?

Mr. YATES. Yes.

Mr. JAYSON. That 1,700-page volume?

Mr. YATES. Yes.

Mr. JAYSON. We update that every 10 years or so at the request Congress.

of

The 1964 edition was 3 years in the making, not full time, by several of our people. The Congress reimbursed us to the extent of $25,000. We estimate that the cost of that to us was probably over $65,000.

Mr. YATES. Estimate the cost of that volume that I have just given to you to look at.

Mr. JAYSON. Perhaps I could provide it for the record.

Mr. YATES. Be glad to have you provide it for the record. (The information follows:)

The estimated cost to the Library of Congress, in terms of staff salaries, for the preparation of the report entitled, "Soviet Space Programs, 1962-65," is $27,300. The salaries to the staff members involved, while working on the report, is estimated as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Mr. YATES. I am interested in knowing approximately what you think that would cost. You said that you had three of your senior analysts on it and two people from the Library of Congress. What do those three senior analysts get a year?

Mr. JAYSON. One of the authors, Joseph Whelan, is in grade 15.
Mr. YATES. What does he get in salary?

Mr. JAYSON. In the area of $20,000. Another of the authors was Leon Herman, who is our senior specialist in Soviet economics. His salary is probably about $25,000.

I would have to ask the Law Librarian as to Mr. Rusis and Mr. Dumas Krivickas.

Mr. COFFIN. Approximately $12,000 each.

Mr. JAYSON. Leonard Black is in the Aerospace and Technology Division.

Mr. YATES. The sum total of all those salaries per annum is roughly $70,000, is it not?

« PreviousContinue »