That was what was brought to the committee's attention.

Mr. BOLLING. I think this is a fine thing to pursue because it obviously has all kinds of potentials and I frankly would say I don't know the answer.

My own initial reaction would be that if they were doing this in coordination with the GAO at the specific request of a committee of the Congress, while they ought to be terribly careful about what they do, that it would be a legitimate function. Frankly, to be perfectly honest about it, I hadn't anticipated that they would have to run around a whole lot and my own view of it would be that their running around should be as limited as possible and only then allowed on the specific understanding that it was a direct request of a committee and that it was in complete coordination with the GAO so that we don't have any conflict.

What Mr. Sisk did was to haul them in and make sure that we had some kind of meeting of the minds, and I think they would have to be kept on a very short rein on this particular matter. Otherwise everybody builds their empires and everybody loves to travel, apparently.

I think it would be quite proper in holding short rein but I don't see how in the case of Radio Free Europe they could carry out the duty assigned to them without traveling. I really don't.

Mr. WYATT. On the other hand, I don't feel, and I think there are probably some members here who feel the same way, that the Congressional Research Service should be at the beck and call of every committee or even individual members to travel and to do really basic investigative work. They have to have some basis for refusing to do it if they are pressured continuously to do it.

Mr. BOLLING. I didn't want to get ahead of you Mr. Sisk, but I know I don't want them going for individual members and I know that I don't want them doing anything except at the request of a committee and I would hope that that request would be a relatively formal request and not an informal one where the chairman said, "I want you to do so-and-so."

REQUESTS INVOLVING EXTENSIVE TRAVEL

Mr. WYATT. Let me just make one final comment to you gentlemen and that is as an individual member of this committee, and I think representing the views of some other members, I personally feel that the CRS should not be responsive to investigative requests involving trayeling, particularly extensive traveling, even if these requests are made by committees, unless there are very exceptional circumstances that should require them to do it instead of the GAO. I think that the committee should recognize that their first investigative source is the GAO. Mr. SISK. Let me say I basically agree with what you are saying looking back and recalling from memory the long discussion that took place. As Mr. Bolling has already indicated, we went to considerable length with reference to this business about the GAO, for example, as well as the CRS being tied down by a whole variety of individual member requests. As you will remember, we actually wrote into the Reorganization Act certain requirements for the GAO and requirements as to committees borrowing their people and keeping them over indefinite periods of time. We required an accounting by committees, as you remember.

74-040 O - 72 - 56

I don't remember the exact language but some of the very things you are bringing up we attempted to resolve.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRS AND GAO

With reference to the Congressional Research Service's activities and their working with GAO, there was a time when there was a little disagreement between the two agencies as to exactly their field, but these were amiably worked out. I felt that the understanding was that coordination and cooperation and no conflict was to be the rule. If conflict develops then Congress is simply going to have to step in and do something about it.

INTENT OF RULES COMMITTEE

With reference to travel I would say as little travel as possible. On the other hand, if a committee asks CRS to do a particular job investigating an ongoing program and how well it is working or whether we should continue to put money in, naturally I can see there are going to be times for travel. I don't think we can restrict travel. At the same time I never thought of CRS, and do not now, as a purely investigative agency. That was not the intent of our committee.

Mr. WYATT. Perhaps this record will be of some assistance to them and to us.

Mr. EVANS. Any other questions?

REVIEW OF CRS TRAVEL

Mr. HATHAWAY. Apropos of the Congressional Research Service, is there any way we can have some kind of a check against travel and other frivolous requests? I know when we had the Library of Congress people here they said on an individual Member's request they do have sort of a check.

Mr. SISK. Yes.

Mr. HATHAWAY. It is difficult for them I suppose to refuse a committee's request regardless of how frivolous it is.

Mr. SISK. That is right. They have a limit in connection with individual Members because we wrote into the Reorganization Act some specific language on that. But in connection with a committee, let's say your committee here, if you requested service from them, which you have a perfect right to do and basically that is the job the Congressional Research Service is supposed to perform, to serve committees of the Congress, and you said, "We want to look into what is going on in X program," well, then, to the extent that travel is required to do that job of course they are mandated to do that.

That is in connection with you who from the financial standpoint need an oversight.

Now, as to the Joint Committee on the Library, although the Congressional Research Service is now autonomous but for administrative purposes it is still a part of the Library, it could have some oversight there.

If we find that travel, as you brought out, is becoming too much of an item, then it might very well be that we would simply have to place some limitations on it but basically in the Reorganization Act we mandated them to serve committees.

CONTROL OVER REQUESTS FOR CRS ASSISTANCE

Mr. HATHAWAY. It might just be travel or it might be a very expensive research project which really isn't very necessary. That is what I am concerned about.

Mr. SISK. Well, again I would have to say on that, Bill, it gets down to the responsibility of the committee. You understand they are responsive both to Senate committees and House committees. This is of course a thing for the whole Congress. If a Senate committee makes a request, such as was discussed here a little while ago with Radio Free Europe, I will have to say that as the Reorganization Act was written and their mandate, I think they would have to respond to the best of their ability. The only way you could offset that would probably be to amend the act itself and include limitations.

Mr. HATHAWAY. That is not by vote of the committee? That is just at the committee chairman's request or what?

Mr. SISK. No. The way the language was written in the Reorganization Act, and you know we went pretty far to try to restore what we call democracy in committees so majority vote of the committee controls the committee, if a committee wanted to permit a chairman to take that authority, he could. In essence the power, the authority, rests in the commitee but to whatever extent they want to give the chairman leeway to operate, that is up to the committee.

Mr. HATHAWAY. The way it works now it would have to be at the committee chairman's request to the Congressional Research Service? Mr. SISK. As far as the legal language, and I do not have the act in front of me, basically it is at the request of the committee.

Mr. HATHAWAY. So if I call them up from this subcommittee and I say I want an investigation of such-and-such, do they investigate to see whether that is the majority wish of the committee?

Mr. SISK. I would assume that certainly that request would probably want to come through the chairman. Now, we restrict them with reference to their reactions to individual Members. Therefore I would say that it would have to come through the duly constituted authority of the committee.

Mr. HATHAWAY. Do you think you ought to amend the act to make that clear?

Mr. SISK. It might be. As I say, we had not anticipated this problem. You never know until you try these things out. It may very well be that we may have to further amend the act if this becomes a problem.

TRAVEL LIMITATION

Mr. WYATT. Bernie, there is just one other thing in connection with their travel. If it gets beyond the point that we feel it should go we can always by the appropriations process be a modifying factor on it.

Mr. SISK. That is right. As I say, you could in a sense be an oversight because I know you look at these budgets and if travel expense becomes a substantial item then I am certain you are going to be questioning it and certainly Congress is.

We could, for example, have limited them to domestic travel, but the question of foreign travel by Congressional Research Service never came up as an item. Maybe that was an oversight on our part. We

went through, it seemed like months on this matter, and we had Mr. Elmer Staats of GAO and Dr. Jayson and others of the Library in on a number of meetings sitting together, sometimes separately. and we really hashed and rehashed this out and thought we worked out most of the problems between the two agencies. But on the matter of foreign travel, I do not recall any discussion.

DELINEATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES BETWEEN GAO AND CRS

Mr. WYATT. As a matter of fact I am going to be watching very carefully any investigation they do as such which involves any travel, because I think we have to be really careful that we don't have to be really careful that we don't have two investigative organizations developing here, and weakening the purpose for which we really established the Congressional Research Service.

Mr. SISK. There is a rather narrow line drawn in the legislative field. I know at the time when we discussed interpretations, Mr. Staat's interpretation vis-a-vis Dr. Jason's interpretation, I felt there was a clear delineation between the responsibilities. The power, the policymaking to the extent that there is a policymaking power in the Congressional Research Service vis-a-vis the GAO, was well worked out. However, if it proves that this becomes a problem, as I say, I would be the first one to advocate amending the act.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Rhodes.

Mr. RHODES. I have nothing to add, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Sisk and Mr. Bolling, we appreciate you both taking time to appear before our committee. Thank you so much. Mr. SISK. Thank you, gentlemen. I have enjoyed my visit with you. Mr. EVANS. We have completed hearings on the regular 1973 requests for operation of the Legislative Branch of the Government. The committee will now adjourn subject to the call of the Chair.

Page

1

1

1

870

1

1

715

565

715

1

1

285, 848

848

565

337

565

1

863

337

285, 848 715

1

715

715

565

285, 848

715

1

337

715

715

715

565

565

1

565 337

1

715

715

337

J

337 337

1

565

565

701

870

565, 701

565

565

285, 848

337

1

337

337