Mr. MORRIS. No. I think we have a balance of $2,400 or $2,500, without the supplemental.

Mr. HORAN. Thank you.

Mr. STEED. Mr. Joelson?

Mr. JOELSON. No questions.

Mr. STEED. Mr. Langen?

Mr. LANGEN. I am interested in the reduced mail count. Is this due to the reduced frank privilege of box holders in rural areas?

Mr. MORRIS. Not to a great extent. That might be a small part of it. That never did pose a real problem in the past. I think those that probably no longer have the availability of sending out farm bulletins under simplified address have increased their questionnaires to replace it. Usually from February through May in an off year we have the big volume of that. The original mail goes through the folding room, which we do not handle, but we get the returns. Mr. LANGEN. Has it made any difference to you?

Mr. MORRIS. No, sir.

Mr. JOELSON. These are figures on incoming mail?

Mr. MORRIS. Yes.

Mr. LANGEN. What about the outgoing mail?

Mr. MORRIS. That is done in the folding room and I do not think they keep a record on that.

Mr. STEED. If the gentleman will yield. In the hearings before the Subcommittee on Post Office and Treasury Appropriations a report is made on the outgoing mail each year and the amount they claim credit for in determining the deficit that actually piles up, and in the hearings on that bill you will find the figures for everything concerned with the amount of outgoing mail that generates on the Hill itself. Mr. LANGEN. May I revert back and ask the experience of the folding room?

Mr. ROBERTS. There is no one here from the folding room at this time.

Mr. STEED. In the presentation of the Post Office Department on all these items they claim credit for in determining their deficit, that franked mail is all contained in there in great detail.

OFFICIAL REPORTERS OF DEBATES

Mr. STEED. Official reporters of debates.

Mr. ROBERTS. For official reporters of debates, $217,120, compared with $212,980 appropriated for 1963, or an increase of $4,140. This increase is provided by the Salary Act of 1962.

OFFICIAL REPORTERS TO COMMITTEES

For official reporters to committees, $219,345, as compared with $215,160 appropriated for 1963, or an increase of $4,185. This increase is provided by the Salary Act of 1962.

APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, INVESTIGATING STAFF

For salaries and expenses, studies and examinations of executive agencies by the Committee on Appropriations, to be expended in accordance with section 202 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, $660,000 compared with $628,260 appropriated for 1963, or an increase of $31,740.

Mr. STEED. Can you tell us how much of this item was expended in 1962 and what surplus remains?

Mr. GIBSON. In fiscal year 1962, there was $513,902.74 expended, leaving a balance of $36,097.26.

Mr. STEED. Do you have the figures on how much has been expended so far this year?

Mr. GIBSON. As of April 30, 1963, the appropriation investigative staff has expended $502,250.50, leaving a balance of $97,749.50.

OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL

Mr. STEED. You may proceed, office of legislative counsel. Mr. MEGILL. For salaries and expenses of the office of the legislative counsel $252,530, compared with $239,785 appropriated for 1963, or an increase of $12,745. Mr. Edward Craft, the legislative counsel, will be pleased to appear before the committee to answer any questions that you care to ask. All positions and rates of salaries are set by the legislative counsel, with the approval of the Speaker, except the legislative counsel, whose salary is set by law.

Mr. STEED. Mr. Craft, would you like to make a statement?

Mr. CRAFT. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my statement will be brief, but I shall be glad, of course, to try to furnish any information the subcommittee may desire.

As you know, the function of the office is to assist committees and Members of the House-when they ask for assistance-in the drafting of bills, resolutions, and amendments, and on the legal problems involved therein.

During the 87th Congress the office rendered that assistance pursuant to a total of 5,528 requests. This total, which is greater than in any previous Congress, included 4.704 requests from 420 Members and 824 requests from 18 standing committees and 2 select committees of the House and one joint committee. For the information of the subcommittee, there is attached to my statement a tabulation showing the number of "jobs" done for committees and Members for each Congress since 1950.

As has been true for several years, the office personnel consists of 11 attorneys and 6 clerical employees. Except for the cost of law books and periodicals and necessary office supplies and equipment, the office expenses are wholly for the salaries of personnel.

For the fiscal year 1964 we have requested the sum of $252,530. This amount will be sufficient to cover estimated miscellaneous expenses of $2,000, the present payroll, the amount of $7,500 so that we

may continue to have a reserve to permit the appointment of another young attorney, and a reserve of $16,470 for meritorious promotions. As you know, the appointment of personnel and promotions can be made only with the approval of the Speaker.

I hope the subcommittee will approve the amount requested for the office.

OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Jobs done for committees and members (in the drafting of bills and resolutions and amendments thereto, etc.) since 1950 1

1 In this work record, a request for assistance is counted as a single "job," whether the work took an hour or 2 or whether it took most of the time of 1 or 2 men for weeks (as often happens in the case of bills worked on for committees). No record is kept of many instances (running into the hundreds during each session) in which Members or their secretaries request assistance on drafting or legal problems, but where no written material is prepared by the office,

Mr. STEED. There is a detail here perhaps you can clear up.

The added items, the $7,500, the $16,470, and the $2,000 adds up to more than the overall increase when you compare the 1964 request to the 1963 appropriation.

Mr. CRAFT. Yes.

Mr. STEED. $12,750 more. How do you explain that?

Mr. CRAFT. This was figured on an annual basis. It is attributable to the general 7 percent pay increase, the timing of the appropriation acts, and the reserve for an additional attorney. Also, traditionally, we have had in the reserve for promotions, a cushion for contingencies.

As I explained to the committee last year, when Mr. Perley retired, I felt there should be substantial promotions, to take into account the increased responsibility for the various attorneys in the office. Because of the time factors, that was not accomplished last year.

Mr. STEED. Does that mean you will wind up this year with some net savings in your budget?

Mr. CRAFT. Yes.

I have an estimate. At the current expenditure rate, it would appear, assuming no promotions between now and the end of the year, that for fiscal year 1963 we should have a balance in the neighborhood of $15,500 from the existing appropriation, including the supplemental, so we will actually spend for fiscal year 1963 about $224,267. That is an estimate based on existing rates.

Mr. STEED. In connection with your promotion program, what policy do you try to follow in that regard?

Mr. CRAFT. The usual practice followed in the office has been to appoint young attorneys at relatively low initial salaries and then, if they are retained after a trial period, to promote them from time to time as their usefulness in the office is demonstrated through experience.

Mr. STEED. How often on an average do you grant a promotion?

Mr. CRAFT. We try to have promotions at least annually to begin with. When there has been a general salary increase, which is not a promotion in the sense of going up the ladder, there have been promotions more frequently.

What we try to do is to get competent young lawyers just out of law school. Before they are really worth anything to the office they have to go through a training period of 1 or 2 years. When we appoint a man, it has always been the practice to tell him it is for a trial period with the promise of periodic and substantial promotions if he succeeds in the work with the ultimate expectancy of attaining a level with the professional staff and comparable jobs downtown.

The reason the appropriation has grown fairly rapidly is because of the expansion program that was undertaken as a result of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Just before World War II, we had an office staff of five attorneys and two clerks. The period of expansion brought that to its present level of 11 attorneys and 6 clerks.

As you know, Mr. Perley felt for some time we should have another attorney, but due to the space problem we just did not feel we could add that additional attorney unless we found an outstanding individual that we could not pass up.

Mr. STEED. We have many statutory employees who do not enjoy the advantage of having someone with discretionary authority to raise their salary. This means you mostly use this discretion with young lawyers and it is not necessarily used extensively for those that are your top qualified people.

Mr. CRAFT. Up to this point, those who actually have attained the top are few, so it would be up and down the line. It is reaching the point where the office in a sense is maturing.

Mr. STEED. You mentioned your difficulty with space. Are there any plans to move you in the new building when it is available? Mr. CRAFT. Not that I know of.

When the remodeling plans were made and this would be subject to the discretion of the House Office Building Commissionthere was included some special remodeling that would suit the needs of the office.

Mr. STEED. This additional space will make it possible for you to acquire some additional space for your operations?

Mr. CRAFT. We certainly hope so. It is really necessary because, under the crowded conditions under which we operate, we need more space for the attorneys and for holding conferences when people come to the office and when we have drafting sessions with groups. It is very disturbing under present conditions.

Mr. STEED. With this rather heavy increase in your workload, are you able to stay current in filling the requests that come to you?

Mr. CRAFT. I think we have done better than we really expected to do in this regard. I believe it is due to the fact that as the attorneys have gained experience they are able to do more work in a shorter period of time.

Actually, we are not hurting too badly now. There are changes from time to time, of course, but at the present time we seem to be getting along fairly well.

Mr. STEED. Thank you very much, Mr. Craft.

We will insert the schedule of expenses on page 30 of the bill at this

point.

(The information follows:)

CLERK HIRE, MEMBERS, AND RESIDENT COMMISSIONER

Mr. STEED. That now brings us to clerk hire, Members, and Resident Commissioner.

Mr. ROBERTS. For clerk hire necessary for employees of each Member and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico in the discharge of their official and representative duties, $21,800,000 compared with $21,348,090 appropriated for 1963, or an increase of $451,910. Our estimate is based largely upon experience, although we have no way of knowing exactly how much may be used. The precise amount requested depends upon the salaries designated by the Members to their staffs within the limitation of the law.

As of February 28, 1963, the Members were employing 3,090 clerks at the gross monthly salary of $1,712,820, while under the law 4,030 clerks could be employed. Of the latter number, 108 Members with a constituency of over 500,000 could employ 10 clerks each, whereas all other Members are limited to 9 clerks.

Mr. STEED. At the February 28 rate, the gross annual cost for this item would be $20,553,840; is that true?

Mr. GIBSON. Yes.