there is contained a complete synopsis of each bill, where it is, whether it is on its first reading, whether it has been reported out of the committee, and so forth.

Mr. LUDLOW. Is that a subscription service?

Mr. POWERS. Yes. That is furnished by private individuals in Trenton. It is a mightly helpful thing.

Mr. ARNOLD. There is no reason why this should not be done by the Government 2 or 3 men could do that work for all the Members of the House and the Senate.

Mr. POWERS. It should be done by the Government, by all means. Mr. LUDLOW. In that connection, have you any estimate, even a rough estimate, of what would be the cost of it?

Mr. ARNOLD. I had the matter up with the Librarian of Congress. I also talked to the Legislative Counsel of the House. It occurs to me that inasmuch as the Legislative Reference Bureau has the trained personnel to do this particular line of work, that would be the place to lodge the responsibility for this work. Of course, their personnel would have to be increased somewhat.

Mr. SNYDER. That is it, exactly.

Mr. ARNOLD. I have here a letter from the Librarian in regard to this matter, which I will furnish for the record, if there is no objection. It contains a good deal of valuable information that it might be well to have in the hearings.

Mr. LUDLOW. If there is no objection, the letter will be made a part of the record.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. WILLIAM W. ARNOLD,

Room 1410, House Office Building.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
Washington, March 5, 1935.

DEAR MR. ARNOLD: In your call here several days ago you expressed interest in the possibility of a current "digest" of bills pending in Congress, the digest to be in a form available to all Members. You asked us to consider and comment upon such a project.

The number of bills and joint resolutions introduced to date in the Seventyfourth Congress appears to be about 8,700. To these may be added between 100 and 200 for each additional month of the session. This may bring the number for the session to, say, 9,300.

Of these, probably two-thirds are either local or private. There would remain, therefore, about a third-say, 3,300-of a public nature.

If the project is to include all of these, it would involve the following operations: 1. (A necessary preliminary): An index to all of the bills as and when introduced;

2. Á digest of each bill as introduced;

3. A revision of such digest of the bill as and when reported; since bills of any importance are so generally revised in committee, that a digest of them as introduced would be misleading in debate upon them.

A hasty estimate indicates that the above tasks will require a staff as follows:

Estimatin a session to endure, on the average, for 6 months, the cost of the service during that period would thus be between 9 and 19 thousand dollars. As, however, it would not do to organize the service newly at the outset of each session, a skeleton force at least should be maintained throughout the fiscal year. It could well be utilized in connection with other matters with which the agency selected is concerned.

Apart from the service and compilation, there must be a distinct provision for printing or otherwise manifolding both the indexes and the digests.

The foregoing figures assume that all public bills would be treated. If there could be a limitation, if, that is to say, there could be a selection of the bills likely to have serious consideration on the floor, the task would be correspondingly reduced. The simplest such limitation would, of course, be to the bills actually reported by committees. In spite of the objection that you suggested to such a limitation, I am inclined to think that it would be wise as an experimental stage in the project. There might be an extension of it to include any other bill, upon request of a Member or of the clerk of a committee.

Any such limitation would, of course, apply merely to the digests, the index being comprehensive.

The agency for the service: I know of no existing agency that could undertake it with its present organization. Logically, it might seem appropriate to the office of the bill clerks of the Senate and House. In some ways it would seem appropriate, and certainly would be effective, if attached to the offices of the Legislative Counsel, particularly since those offices will have occasion to consider important bills reported out from committees and even during their consideration by the committees, and, indeed, often before their introduction.

You asked whether it might not be undertaken by our Legislative Reference Service here. That service includes a section devoted to the indexing, of statutes and therefore including persons of the type competent for such a service as is proposed. The present staff is, however, hard pressed with its present routine; and the proposed indexes and digests of the bills would require the addition to it of a separate section involving a personnel such as is indicated on the preceding page, and an expenditure of perhaps $10,000 for each session, and, if efficiency is to be maintained by the retention of a skeleton staff during the recesses, of, say, $15,000 for each fiscal year.

If the service is to be located here, the simple expedient would be to provide that additional $15,000 in connection with the annual appropriation for our Legislative Reference Service.

I may note that about 15 years ago (in 1920) there was, for a period, an attempt at this Service in our Legislative Reference Division. It was, however, discontinued partly because beyond the abilities of the existing staff, but also because of the criticism that in attempting to cover bills merely as introduced, it went beyond any practical interest to the Members.

I am enclosing also a memorandum from the Director of the Legislative Reference Service with some further suggestions as to provisions necessary, including printing and proof reading, and of course mandatory delivery to the section of two copies of every bill as printed.

Faithfully yours,

HERBERT PUTnam, Librarian.

Mr. ARNOLD. From a reading of this letter I would get the idea that they have a conception of going into this thing in too great detail, for instance, of bills that are simply introduced and have not been reported out from a committee. They say that:

If the project is to include all of these, it would involve the following operations: 1. (A necessary preliminary): An index to all of the bills as and when introduced;

2. Á digest of each bill as introduced;

3. A revision of such digest of the bill as and when reported; since bills of any importance are so generally revised in committee that a digest of them as introduced would be misleading in debate upon them.

We have discussed that, and they indicate that it would require a staff as follows:

One person in charge, in grade P-4, at $3,800, or $317 a month; 3 indexers, in in grade P-2, at $2,600, or $650 a month; 1 bill clerk, in grade CAF-3, at $1,620,

129686-35-12

or $135 a month; 2 typists, in grade CAF-2, at $1,440, or $240 a month; 1 clerical assistant, in grade CAF-1, at $1,260, or $105 per month; 1 messenger, in grade custodial 1, at $600, or $50 per month; per diem or other temporary service, $40 per month, or a total of $1,537 a month.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to think that in this estimate they are considering a rather comprehensive digest of each bill as introduced, which, of course, is not necessary. I should think three or four, or four or five sentences probably would give you the gist of most of these bills.

Mr. LUDLOW. What you would want is the central thought of the bill.

Mr. ARNOLD. That is correct.

Mr. LUDLOW. And then if the Member is sufficiently interested, he can send for the bill and study it.

Mr. ARNOLD. Yes. But on the bills that are reported out by committees, I would suggest that they go into greater detail, possibly giving a short synopsis by sections. I cannot conceive of anything, gentlemen, that would be of greater service to the Members of the Congress generally than this service. Here you will have three or four employees, not more than half a dozen, who would be on the pay roll to perform that service, and they would be performing a service for each and every Member of the House and the Senate.

A competent man in each of our offices, a man who would be capable of making an analysis of these bills would entail too much

expense.

Mr. POWERS. That entire service for the whole Congress would not cost probably more than $9,000 a session, would it?

Mr. LUDLOW. Along in this letter they state that they would probably have to keep up a skeleton staff during the recesses.

Mr. SNYDER. That is correct.

Mr. ARNOLD. And they estimate that an expenditure of $10,000 for each session, with a skeleton organization during the recesses, to keep the organization intact which would amount to $5,000 more, or possibly $15,000 in all, would be sufficient. But I believe that they have in mind going into greater detail than is necessary, on bills when first introduced.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. We could start with less and see whether or not we could work it out.

Mr. ARNOLD. That is my idea.

Mr. LUDLOW. Do you not think that $10,000 would cover it?

Mr. ARNOLD. I do not think there is any question about it. I think that if this matter appears to you gentlemen favorably, that in your report you should set forth just about what would be expected

as a trial venture.

Mr. LUDLOW. Do they not have some employees over there who could be used in a pinch on this work?

Mr. ARNOLD. They claim that their personnel is busy, their time is pretty well occupied in the work they are performing now. I think you should increase the number of their employees, if you give them these duties.

Mr. LUDLOW. I did not mean to turn the entire work over to them to be handled by their present personnel; but if we should make a certain alllotment, and they found they were a little short of help, perhaps they could use some of their regular help on this work in a pinch.

Mr. ARNOLD. I thought at first that some legislation might be necessary.

Mr. SNYDER. I do not believe it is.

Mr. ARNOLD. But I looked at the language carrying the appropriation for the Legislative Reference Service, and I think it is broad enough, if you gentlemen see fit to make an allocation of an additional amount of money to that purpose, to carry this along; also with a small additional amount for printing and binding.

Mr. LUDLOW. Let me understand this clearly. You do not mean a special set-up in this bill; but you mean to increase the appropriation for the Legislative Reference Service?

Mr. ARNOLD. That is the idea.

Mr. LUDLOW. With the understanding that that extra personnel would be detailed to this work.

Mr. ARNOLD. The same language would be carried in the bill as is now carried. You would just increase the amount and specify in your report that this additional work is the work that you expect them to perform with this additional appropriation.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. I think we could have some returns out of a service like this. While, of course, it would be free to Members of Congress, so far as outsiders are concerned, to institutions like chambers of commerce and manufacturers' associations, a charge could be made.

Mr. LUDLOW. Nongovernmental bodies.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Nongovernmental bodies or associations. We could make a charge, a very legitimate charge for this service, for extra copies of these digests.

Mr. ARNOLD. Something on the order of the charge made for the Congressional Record.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. That is correct. Now that this discussion has come up, let me tell you of my experience with the chamber of commerce in Los Angeles. They requested me earnestly if it would be possible for me first of all to furnish them with a copy of every bill that was introduced in Congress. It is a very active chamber of commerce. They have all of these subdivisions and departments and they have very able men in their various departments. I told them that I could not promise to do that, that I would send them the Congressional Record and that they could see for themselves what had been introduced, and if there was anything pertaining to the affairs of Los Angeles County or the State of California, they could write me and my clerk automatically would send them a copy of that bill.

The next thing they asked me was as to the bills that affected us in California, in which they would be interested, to follow those bills through their legislative course, to see what happened, and to give them a brief synopsis of that.

Mr. ARNOLD. This would be just what they would need.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. I told them that would be impossible with my office force of two clerks, that I could not possibly do it. I asked them if they could not find a way to send a man to Washington; that they have a chamber of commerce representing the fifth largest city in the United States, and probably could afford to send a man to Washington and pay him a handsome salary; but that there was no Member of Congress from California who could afford to undertake

that kind of work without completely abandoning all of his other congressional work.

This suggestion you make, Mr. Arnold, appears wonderfully attractive to me. I do not think you will find one commercial association or manufacturers' association that will not take advantage of it, and be willing to pay handsomely for it, just as you would want to be posted daily on tax matters, opinions of the Attorney General, opinions of the Board of Tax Appeals, if you were in that line of work. In our law office we pay large sums for those services in order to know promptly what the decisions are.

I think this matter could be made to pay its own way.

Mr. POWERS. I cannot tell you what they get for these legislative services in the State of New Jersey, but I do not know that a number of people are making a very handsome living from it. I will secure a copy of this Legislative Index and the Legislative News and bring them down to let you gentlemen see them, and perhaps you can get some idea from them as to what this should contain.

This

Mr. ARNOLD. We have a legislative synopsis and digest in the State Legislature of Illinois. I have a copy of it here with me. will give you some general idea as to what I think ought to be carried, as these bills are introduced.

For instance, here is H. B. 229, Sinnott he is the introduceramending section 26 of the teachers' pension act by providing that teachers who reach 70 years of age, and who have served 25 years or more, may pay into the fund $200 with interest at 4 percent per annum from July 1, 1935, until the date it is paid, if paid after July 15, 1935, but no interest is paid before July 1, 1935, and then be entitled to an annuity of $24 for each year of service, but in no event to receive more than $600 in any one year.

That is the gist of the matter in that bill; and so on.
Following that it says:

February 5, introduced, committee on revenue; February 26, recommended to pass; first reading February 27; March 5, second reading.

And so on.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. If we just got a copy of a bill that was intended to amend or modify section so-and-so, of such-and-such an act, approved on such a date, you would have to get the original bill. Those are the most difficult of all the bills that come over a Congressman's desk, because from a first reading of it you can make nothing out of what is intended unless you go to where the original act is to be found and learn what it is that it is intended to amend or to modify.

I would suggest there that our digester, whoever he is, when he gets a bill like that, not in an authoritative, but descriptive way, as best he can, state the purpose of the original act passed by the Congress which it was intended to amend by the bill which we are now looking into.

Mr. LUDLOW. In other words, to make it clearly understandable. Mr. DOCKWEILER. Yes.

Mr. ARNOLD. I believe it will also be of wonderful service to the country at large, and the country at large will be willing to pay for it. Mr. LUDLOW. What would be the mechanics of getting it out? Would you print it or mimeograph it?

Mr. ARNOLD. I imagine that it should be printed, something like the daily calendar is printed.