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. 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 designated 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 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. JAYSON. No, sir. 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. LANGEN. Surely. 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 ran 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. 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. 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 designated 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 sta tistics 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. |