are greater than we would have anticipated. We feel we are in good shape to finish it certainly within the coming year. Mr. HORAN. That is all, Mr. Chairman. ADDITIONAL POSITIONS REQUESTED Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, unless you wish to ask me a question, could I comment on the next item, namely, the 10-position increase that we ask for outside of the $18,000 item to which Mr. Mumford has already referred. Mr. NORRELL. You are asking for 10 new jobs there. Mr. FISHER. Ten in all, broken down in different operating positions. Mr. NORRELL. As I understand, you base this on increased workload. I think we should insert page 66, except I wish you would extend it a few years back, say to 1950, if you can. Mr. FISHER. Earlier years? Mr. NORRELL. Take it back to 1950, if you can. Mr. FISHER. We will undertake to supplement this from 1950 to 1957. We shall be glad to do that. (The information may be found on p. 195.) Mr. MUMFORD. In order to complete that picture, may I request that the list of positions on pages 66-67 be included? Mr. NORRELL. That may be done. (The pages referred to follow :) Justification of new positions requested The additional 10 positions requested for 1960, together with the 6 positions granted for 1959, would increase the staff needed to handle the workload only 8 percent over the 1957 staff although the workload increase is expected to be at least 11 percent over that for 1957. The additional positions requested are: Examining Division: 1 GS-4 correspondence clerk. 2 GS-5 examiners__- Cataloging Division: 1 GS-5 editorial clerk__ 2 GS-5 catalogers---. Service Division: 1 GS-3 file clerk.. 1 GS-4 search clerk___ 1 GS-4 accounting clerk.. Reference Division: 1 GS-4 correspondence clerk... Total 10 positions---. The average salary of the above positions is $3,885. $3,765 8. 112 4, 056 8, 112 3, 515 3,765 3,765 3,765 38, 855 Mr. FISHER. May I make a brief statement regarding that? Mr. NORRELL. Yes. Mr. FISHER. In the years that I have been in the Copyright Office, which is about 12 years, with minor exceptions and one principal exception, namely, the revision study that I have spoken about, the increases we have asked for have been based strictly on increased workload which is reflected in increased burden of work and increased revenues to the Treasury. In applying the estimated increase in workload to positions, we applied it only to the actual operating positions. For example, today we have about 236 positions in the Office, and we feel that of those, say 200 are actual operating positions reflecting increased registrations, and the balance are either supervisors or attorneys or compliance, to which the percentage would not be applied. So taking the actual operating workload positions which have to handle the daily registration claims and related work to keep current-and we undertake to keep our Office at all times on a current basis-we take the actual registration increase that we have had over, say, a 3-year period and project that forward on a graph, and then apply that percentage increase in workload to the actual operating positions. If you take from page 66 the last 3 years, the Fear 1958, the year 1959 which is now nearly completed, and projecting that forward to 1960, the percentage increase you will see is 11 percent. If you apply that to 200 positions, you would get an increase of 22 positions. Actually, we have only asked in that 3-year period for 16 operating positions. We got none in 1958, I believe, 6 in 1959, and we are asking for 10 now. We have made a conservative estimate of the need for actual operating positions, and the positions we ask for are based on that need. There is one exception. I believe in 1957 we did ask for three compliance positions which were not based on daily workload reflecting registration claims filed. Compliance is a police operation. That operation more than pays its way by cash, substantially more in cash received and in value of works. For the present year, the figures I have, which have just been assembled through April, show that our business is running 3.3 percent ahead of last year, whereas the estimate on which these figures are based is 212 percent. So we feel for the year 1959 we are well within our estimate, and if we project that figure forward to 1960, for the 3-year period we are asking for six less positions than our actual increase in workload and cash turnover to the Treasury would justify. Mr. NORRELL. Are you suffering very much from this backlog? Mr. FISHER. Our position is about this: We undertake to run the Office on a current basis. We take great pride in it. We run on very strict standards of currency. That means we deal with the current applications to maintain currency, but we have a whole series of other operations which necessitate maintenance, like editing our big catalog. I believe we have the biggest catalog in the Library, if not in the world, entry cards running well over 20 million. This is not maintained now as it should be because, while we are dealing with the application which comes in each Monday within a strict time limit, we are not editing and we have had to pull off the team from editing the catalog and coordinating it as we should. We have had to build up some other temporary backlog files, which ought to be interfiled, simply because of shortage of funds. One other explanation of this, as I said a few minutes earlier, is that we did not ask for an extension of the appropriations for the general revision. We originally presented a request for a 3-year operation, and we cannot finish it in 3 years. Rather than come in for an extension we have, as the saying is, taken it out of our own hide by deferring certain urgent maintenance, rather than coming in and asking for an increase in the appropriation for that special project. I would say we are maintaining currency on the bare things we have to do currently. It is as if you ran your automobile and still kept it running and put in oil, but you never had it serviced. We have a lot of problems of that sort that we have had to defer, taking personnel off some projects we had in order to keep current at the bare daily working level. Mr. NORRELL. I am not too impressed with the statement in the justifications that these jobs and the six granted in 1959 would be only an 8 percent increase over 1957 as compared with an 11 percent increase in the workload. Do you have anything to say about that? Mr. FISHER. I think that is just a factual statement. Mr. MUMFORD. It is possible, Mr. Chairman, that the 10 positions which the Library relinquished last year entered into your computation. We requested the 10 positions for the study leading to revision, and last year they were relinquished. I am not sure whether that was taken into account in your computations. It was in ours. Mr. NORRELL. I read from the justification. Mr. FISHER. We have not continued the special positions that came in for the general revision, but we are completing the work at the sacrifice of our general operations and maintenance. Mr. NORRELL. One other question. What cataloging work did you transfer elsewhere last year? Mr. MUMFORD. There was a group of catalogers in the Copyright Office who were performing Library cataloging, that is, preparing records for the Library's catalogs and for its printed cards, for books received through copyright deposit. After several years of study, we arrived at the conclusion that this work could be done more effectively if these catalogers were integrated with the regular cataloging staff of the Processing Department. We asked for a transfer of some 20 positions of these catalogers from the Copyright Office to the Cataloging Division of the Processing Department. Mr. FISHER. The point I would like to make is that we also gave up the money. The transfer was on both sides of the ledger. We transferred positions and the Copyright Office gave up the money. It was just an interlibrary account transfer. We felt it was more efficiently handled if it were amalgamated with the regular descriptive cataloging work. Mr. NORRELL. Mr. Kirwan? Mr. NORRELL. That concludes this item. Thank you. Mr. KIRWAN. The next item is the Legislative Reference Service, for which you are asking $1,455,400, or an increase of $65,100 over 1959. We will insert pages 69 and 70 of the justifications at this point. (The pages follow:) 1959 regular bill.. Pending supplemental due to pay increases (H. Doc. 90)-- 125, 300 Total, 1959 1960 estimate.. Net increase_-_ $1, 265, 000 1, 390, 300 +65, 100 Analysis of increases 1. Ingrade increases and other anticipated increases in salary costs. +$10, 850 This is the estimated amount required for increases in salary level in 1960 over 1959 due to mandatory periodic ingrade increases and reallocations. Of this amount, it is expected that 50 percent will be needed for ingrade increases and 50 percent for reallocations. 2. Regular pay in excess of 52-week base_-_ 3. New positions requested... During fiscal year 1959 there are 261 paid days. During +5, 090 Funds for 1 addi Salaries and related expenses: +49, 160 Salary cost, 9 new positions... Contribution to retirement fund on new posi- $46, 238 2, 922 Mr. KIRWAN. You are the new Director, are you? Mr. ELSBREE. Yes. Mr. KIRWAN. It is customary to ask a new official to give a biographical sketch. BIOGRAPHY OF NEW DIRECTOR Mr. ELSBREE. I was born in Preston Hollow, N.Y., February 24, 1904. I received my A.B., M.A., and Ph. D. degrees from Harvard University in 1925, 1927, and 1930, respectively. I was an instructor in government at Harvard from 1928 to 1933. From 1933 to 1943 I was associated with Dartmouth College, where I served as assistant professor, 1933 to 1937, and professor, 1937 to 1943, of political science and as chairman of the department of political science, 1937 to 1941. I left Dartmouth in 1943 to serve for 12 years as a principal business economist with OPA, then joined the Bureau of the Budget in 1945 as administrative analyst. In November 1945 I came to the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress, first as research counsel, and then as senior specialist in American Government and public administration. I was Acting Assistant Director of the Service in 1951-52. In 1954–55 I was loaned to the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, to serve as its Deputy Research Director. I came back to the Library as Deputy Director of the Service. From April 1957 until September of last year I was chairman of the political science department at Wayne State University in Detroit. I came back to the Library in September as Director of the Service. Mr. KIRWAN. Congratulating you, I want to say that you have a good background for your position. We are happy to have you with us. |