1968 '69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

REFERENCE AND RESEARCH REQUESTS

We have updated this chart from last year, going back to the 1970 act and its mandate that we increase our policy analysis and our support of committees. You can see the growth to the point where the service to Members and service to committees, both in reference and in research, is approximately equal. Constituent work has declined slightly.

I mentioned it takes 1 hour to do a reference request and ten hours to do a research request. Actually, to do the constituent

work, which is a representative and Member function, averages about a half hour.

I have some smaller charts which my deputy is handing to you. I show what is happening in the area of policy analysis. We started keeping these figures in 1973, and you can see that the mandate that we increase our policy analysis is reflected by substantial growth. This chart reflects hours of work, not the total number of requests. If you plotted out the number of constituent requests the trend line would come way up. The reference requests also would go up. We are showing here the amount of manpower we are putting into satisfying various requests.

POLICY ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH

To give you an idea of why we specifically requested additional support in policy analysis and research, I mentioned in my statement the heavy impact on the Economics Division, and I would just like to cite a couple of examples of requests where the quality of the response was not what it should have been because of the lack of manpower.

For example, we are requesting an analyst in the area of business taxation. We had a recent report on the tax treatment of electricity generated from coal versus nuclear power sources for the House Energy, and Power Subcommittee, and it was not completed until 12 months past the agreed deadline. We simply could not get the report out.

TAXATION AND PENSIONS

As to taxation and pensions, the tax section presently does not have an analyst who is truly experienced in this field. Consequently, even though we frequently get requests regarding pension taxation, such as ERISA and individual retirement, we respond primarily by sending photocopied material. Original analysis consumes a lot of staff time, and we lack detailed knowledge of a complex and specialized field.

LABOR ECONOMICS

In labor economics, the service to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust regarding analyzing wage rates in the trucking industry-that is unionized versus nonunionized wages-was severely limited because of inadequate staff.

So it isn't always a case we are not answering a particular request. We like to give as much of an answer as we can. And our analysts and researchers frequently go through a process of negotiating down. We more or less say we just cannot give you everything you would like, but let's see what we can give you to satisfy your request.

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS WORKLOAD UP

Our workload in the indepth analysis area has gone up. This is a chart updated from last year, and we have given you copies up there I believe. You will notice the information and reference line,

which is the blue line here, is still climbing some. It is not climbing as rapidly as it has. We have greatly increased our efficiency in this area by moving work out into our reference centers, also in packaging material.

But the indepth analysis request line continues to climb. And as I indicated, this is a heavy man-hour eater. The indepth analysis is the red line. Our budgeted positions are there in green.

[The chart follows:]

GENERATION OF WORKLOAD

So our workload continues to climb in the indepth analysis area, and most of the requests are from committees, though we do get some indepth analysis requests from Members. And I think they are very appropriate; even though a person isn't a member of a committee there is no reason they can't have an idea and even end run a committee on something.

Senator SASSER. Mr. Gude, what is the workload generated by members? Is the work load generated by Members of Congress or by congressional staffs?

Mr. GUDE. I would say, Mr. Chairman, despite the occasional joke that we are working for staff, we are working for Members. The staff that we have on the Hill today, they are bright, they are usually young people, about 25, 30 years old. Most of them do not have a law degree. We have done a survey; there are only about 5 percent with law degrees on Members' staffs. These people are working very hard, and I don't think they are just shunting work over to us. They have a heavy load to carry, and we think we do the kind of support they need in serving the Members.

So the requests come from the Member through the staff to us, and that is the way it should be. An average legislative assistant has to cover so many subject areas they can't possibly have the expertise to get the background when an issue becomes hot and they need considerable indepth knowledge in a hurry. That is the kind of backup we give to Members' staffs.

I think the most important thing is that we try to get the staff in the Member's office to work most efficiently and as economically as possible; to understand us, and to know who to call and how to frame the question, and that is what we are endeavoring to do with our institutes.

GROWTH OF CRS STAFF

Senator SASSER. It seems to me that as long as the Members and congressional staff have relatively unlimited access to the Congressional Research Service, the growth of the CRS workload will continue unabated, and the budget requests will continue to rise to meet this workload. Would you care to comment on this, Mr. Gude? Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, I believe the concept that we can have a Congressional Research Service of 3,000 or 4,000 people is just not practicable and it is not feasible. I think what we are seeing is congressional response to something in the late sixties, whether you want to call it reform or whatever, when the press and various groups who were interested in how Congress functions said that Congress should do away with its carriages, and snuff boxes, and the old people with quill pens that were sitting on the high stools, and get into the modern age. We have therefore seen a growth of staff on the Hill.

IMPLICATIONS OF GROWTH

The Chairman's question concerning the implications of continued growth in CRS workload on future budget requests touches on

a subject to which we have given substantial consideration in our planning process-an optimum size for CRS.

It is apparent to me, based on 2 years of observation, that there must be a critical mass of resources to perform given levels of research service, beyond which mangemement becomes difficult, close professional rapport is weakened, and the quality of service cannot be maintained.

I believe that CRS may be approaching that critical mass for currently mandated services. For that reason our internal budget sessions addressed perceived needs to accomplish a balanced organization to meet current and projected demands for existing services. Certain of our divisions have about reached an appropriate size, according to current perceptions, while others will require additional staffing for balance. Resource planning is based on reaching that balanced organization in 3 years, of which fiscal year 1980 in the first.

While I know of no scientific method of determining the optimum size of CRS, we do have some guidance. First, the House Committee on Rules, in its report on the Reorganization Act of 1970, expected that CRS would have to triple its staff by 1975 to fulfill its responsibilities under the act. While there is nothing magic about tripling, subsequent experience has shown that the committee was on target as to implications of the 1970 mandate. That level of staffing has not been reached, though a number of needed new services have been laid on by statutes, regulations, and the advent of a union in CRS.

The second guidance as to optimum size comes from the recommendations of the various congressional studies conducted in 1976, which pointed out imbalances and inadequacies in CRS staffing. In spite of progress already made, as detailed in my submission for the record, fuller compliance with the recommendations of the oversight commissions and others, awaits the staff augmentations called for in our 3-year planning.

We have projected a need for 1,060 positions in fiscal year 1982; while it is impossible to pinpoint exact subject expertise which will be required almost 4 years from now, we believe that the projected level of staffing would allow CRS management to make appropriate reallocations of positions between research divisions, and between research and reference programs, as client requirements change. Only new or enlarged mandates should require additional staff for CRS.

Our justification for fiscal year 1980 requests 85 of the most needed additions, which can now be made as we move into the Madison Building. With suitable modifications over the next 3 years, our space in Madison should accommodate the planned requests for 60 additional positions in fiscal year 1981 and 59 in fiscal year 1982. This would bring us to the critical mass of 1,060 I have discussed. Obviously there is no more magic to a figure of 1,060 than to the committee's triple. Based on a number of years of experience under the 1970 act, however, we consider it a very rational figure.

We will, of course, continue to work closely with the staff of this subcommittee and others responsible for oversight of our oper