NEW POSITIONS REQUESTED I note you want nine more jobs at a cost of $49,160. You attribute this to increased workload and quality of service. Will you elaborate? Mr. MUMFORD. If you will, Dr. Elsbree. Mr. ELSBREE. We had estimated an increase in workload of approximately 6 percent for this year. The 10-year average had been about that figure. The increase in positions of nine is approximately that, a little bit less. Ordinarily, the Service has not asked for quite as much in new positions as it estimates in increased workload. Last year, however, the actual increase in workload, for fiscal year 1958 that is, was over 12 percent instead of the anticipated 6 percent. We did feel that we would need the nine positions. The total amount is over $46,000, and these positions were to be distributed among the divisions in accordance with the need that we found at the time. Actually, we have had a workload increase for the first 10 months of this fiscal year again of twice what we estimated, or 12 percent. The increase has been distributed over the divisions about in proportion. We feel that a minimum of nine positions is essential to enable us to try to keep up with our ever-increasing workload. IN-GRADE INCREASES AND REALLOCATIONS Mr. KIRWAN. You want more for in-grades and reallocations of positions. What is the situation and the need here? Mr. ELSBREE. This figure is for mandatory in-grade increases and reallocations. You will have to pardon me if I am unsure of precise figures here, but my understanding is that the total figure represents a projection of in-grade increases if there were no reallocations. Because of the fact that there are some reallocations, the actual figure that we would expect to have to use for mandatory in-grade increases alone will not amount to $10,850; the additional cost of reallocations, however, more than makes up for the difference. Mr. KIRWAN. I believe we have given you additional personnel for each of the past several years, is that correct? Mr. ELSBREE. Yes, sir. The table on page 72 indicates the figure was 151 for several years. Then it dropped to 144. In 1956 and 1957, it went to 158; then up to 163, and this year it is 171. WORKLOAD AND POSITIONS, 1950-60 Mr. KIRWAN. Insert the table on page 72 in the record. (The table referred to follows:) The increase in number of inquiries over 1950 may be summarized as follows: Actual increase 1958 over 1950. Estimated increase 1960 over 1950_- Average increase per year (each year over preceding year) Mr. KIRWAN. How is your workload running? Mr. ELSBREE. The number of inquiries answered in 1958 was 67,843. Our estimate for this year was 72,000. At the present rate of increase, based on 10 months' data, our workload this year will be almost 76,000, which is what we had estimated for the next year, 1960. In other words, we are running just double the increase we anticipated. TYPES OF INQUIRIES HANDLED Mr. KIRWAN. I saw a report some time ago where the Joint Committee had given you some direction as to the kinds of inquiry work you could and could not accept. Will you tell us briefly about thatsuch as translation of books, and things of that nature? Mr. ELSBREE. Shall I speak on the translations? Mr. MUMFORD. Yes. I referred to that earlier today in respect to another question. You go ahead. Mr. ELSBREE. In the Legislative Reference Service, I cannot guarantee that we have never done extensive translations for constituent requests. I frankly am not sure about the past. It certainly was our general policy not to do extensive translations on constituent requests where we were aware of the fact that they were constituent requests. We have only two translators. These two translators have always been more than occupied with their translation of committee and official, regular Member requests. We did receive, I am sure, from time to time, constituent requests forwarded from Members' offices, but to my knowledge in the past it has been our general practice not to get involved in any extensive, time-consuming translations for constituents. This, you understand, is our general policy by long understanding with the Committee on House Administration on all constituent inquiries. In other words, they have had a resolution for a long time that, while we are to handle the official mail of the Members and be helpful where we can, we shall not let the answering of these requests interfere with our handling of Member inquiries, which are to have priority. We have always construed that to mean that we ought not to spend a great deal of time on doing translations for constituents. Mr. KIRWAN. That is the instruction the legislative committee gave? They made it clear? Mr. ELSBREE. They made it clear to the Library. Mr. KIRWAN. They made clear that you could handle constituents' mail, to translate a letter or something like that, but not to get into it on a big-time scale. Mr. ELSBREE. That is correct. Mr. KIRWAN. You are not to translate a book for somebody in the neighborhood, or something like that; is that correct? Mr. MUMFORD. That is true for the whole Library. Mr. ELSBREE. The Committee on House Administration action taken years ago with regard to the Legislative Reference Service and its handling of constituent inquiries was not directed specifically to the Library as a whole. WORK FOR COMMITTEES Mr. KIRWAN. Are you doing more or less for committees than previously? And what is the reimbursement arrangement? Mr. ELSBREE. We do a great deal of work for committees, of course, without any kind of reimbursement arrangement. Most of the work we do is done just in the normal course of events. You are familiar with the resolution of the Committee on House Administration that where a committee requests the use of one of our people on a project which will involve more than two man-months of time, they are to go through the Committee on House Administration and get permission to reimburse the Legislative Reference Service for this service. I am sorry I do not know the exact amount it will run to this fiscal year. This is the estimate. Do you want the actual? Mr. KIRWAN. An estimate is all right. Mr. ELSBREE. The estimate was $70,000. The House side was relatively low, about $23,000. Actually it has been less than that. The House and Senate combined are $70,000. Mr. KIRWAN. But the House end of it was about $23,000? Mr. ELSBREE. Estimated at $23,000. Mr. KIRWAN. If you have anything to add, you may. If not, Mr. Horan is recognized. Mr. HORAN. I would like to know if you have filled all the 171 positions that you were allowed in the present fiscal year. Mr. ELSBREE. We have not filled the vacancy of senior specialist in science and technology. We think we just about have it filled. I think you can appreciate the difficulty there is in getting topnotch people. We are now after the man we want to get, and we hope he accepts. (Off the record.) Mr. KIRWAN. Have you anything to add? WORKLOAD INCREASE Mr. ELSBREE. I would like to say that with a 12 percent increase in workload for the second successive year, we are simply, as a matter of record, having to negotiate down inquiries every day. That is, we call back and say, "If you need this by this deadline, we will have to cut it somewhat." We have not, except in rare instances, taken the position of rejecting inquiries and claiming that we have a heavy workload and cannot answer them at all. We do our level best to give each Member the best service we can give him in the time allowed. I would not be honest if I did not say that with the second successive year of double the anticipated workload we are not producing reports always of the kind that we are requested to produce. Sometimes we are not producing reports and memorandums at all. We are sending material instead. Mr. KIRWAN. In other words, you would not be asking for another position if it were not truly and really needed in your department? Mr. ELSBREE. That is true. GUIDLINES ON HANDLING INQUIRIES Mr. HORAN. I think by far the biggest number of Members of the Congress want to obey the rules of the road. Have you ever discussed with the Joint Committee on the Library or the appropriate Committees on Administration in both bodies the possibility of drawing up a mannual of rules of the road regarding legitimate requests of the Legislative Reference Service? Mr. ELSBREE. I will have to speak a little from hearsay unless the Librarian would want to talk on that point. Dr. Griffith has gone to the Committee on House Administration. I think he went every year, did he not, Mr. Mumford, for several years. When there were problems, they were always willing to talk them over. This year, when there is a meeting with the Joint Committee on the Library, perhaps we ought to have a more general discussion. Mr. MUMFORD. I have participated with Dr. Griffith in meetings with the Committee on House Administration several times on particular questions, such as whether the Service should provide partisan papers or studies, on which they drew up a resolution, a copy of which I have here, and other things; more recently the matter of translations we took to the joint committee. I think your question relates to whether we have ever requested them to try to draw up and give us some guidelines as to types of inquiries for official use. Mr. HORAN. Yes, and make it available. Mr. MUMFORD. The constituent question has been debated and discussed before the Committee on House Administration a number of times. As far as trying to define the kind of question which the Service should respond to, no, I would say no attempt has been made, and it would be exceedingly difficult to do, for the Members' official use. Mr. HORAN. I can appreciate that, because the field is so wide. I just raised that question, Mr. Chairman, because certainly in specific instances we need to draw the line. It was my thought that perhaps they might put out a general instruction as to what the Legislative Reference Service was for and what it was not for. Mr. MUMFORD. This might be helpful. It is possible that some very broad guidelines would be helpful. Mr. HORAN. I wish we could give it some thought. It might have merit. Mr. KIRWAN. The next item is distribution of catalog cards. Mr. MUMFORD. Mr. Chairman, if you would insert pages 75, 76, and 77, that summarizes the story there. Mr. KIRWIN. That will be done. (The pages follow :) 1959 regular bill.. Pending supplemental due to pay increases (H. Doc. 90). $1, 177, 535 101, 100 1,878, 635 $1, 935, 800 Add amendment to 1960 estimates, H. Doc. 100 1. 45, 500 1,981, 300 Net increase See footnote at end of table, p. 208. +102, 665 40866-59--14 |