SUMMARY OF DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS ON LEGISLATIVE REPORTING PROCEDURES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 24, 2004
• Sequence Number: 5
• Content Type: SUMMARY

SUMMARY -UF'-bTPARWe%1eAHF9CSC 7C
!E (3N Lf;GTRA NO tZEPORTINO PROCEDURES
The questionnaire was sent to 70 departments or agencies, and 38 filled-out
questionnaires were returned., Every executive department except one replied.
Most of the larger independent agencies replied. A number of the smaller
agencies stated informally that they would not reply because they received
so few requests for legislative reports that their comraents would not be
significant. In some cases the replies did not include answers to all ques-
tions. For convenience the term "agency" in this summary means department
or independent establishment.
Acknowledgment of Requests
31 agencies send acknowledgment letters to Congress when requests are re-
ceived for legislative reports, and 7 do not.
9 agencies send acknowledgments in the case of requests from the Budget
Bureau, and 26 do not.
22 agencies type individual acknowledgment letters, and 8 use form letters.
Of the 8 agencies who use the form acknowledgment letters, 5 also have the
signature processed in advance.
In 13 cases (none including an executive department) the agency head signs
the acknowledgment letters. In 11 cases the letters are signed by the chief
of the legislative division or the assistant, associate, or deputy general
counsel for legislative matters. In 2 cases the general counsel signs the
letters, in one case an assistant secretary for legislative matters, in one
case an assistant administrator, and in one case an executive assistant to
the agency head.
Processing Copies of Reports
Most agencies merely said they submit processed copies when the committees
ask for them. One agency noted that committees are increasingly asking for
copies.
Four agencies process all reports. One agency said they have to do this
anyhow, to get enough copies for internal and Budget Bureau use, and that
they use the same master copy for ozalid (when only a few copies are needed)
or Xerox (when many copies are needed).
One agency always sends a supply of processed copies except in the case of
reports on private bills.
When committees do not ask for extra copies, 1 agency sends original only;
2 send 1 carbon; 2 send 2 carbons; 1 sends 3 carbons; and others made no
notation on this point.
In 27 cases these processed copies are prepared in a central office; in 5
cases by program units within the agency.
In 17 cases the processed copies are made when the reports are originally
prepared, in 16 cases they are made when the reports are ready to be trans-
mitted to Congress, and in 2 cases they are made after the report has been
sent to Rpp ovesd'For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
 Approved For Release 2004/07/09 2CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
In 16 cases these copies are produced by muitilith, 10 by mimeograph, 12 by
one of the new photo-copying machines, 1 by automatic typewriter, and 1 by
ditto. One agency merely said "typewriter." Some specified photo-copying
processes were: Xerox, 3 cases; Copyflo, 1; and Ozalid, 1. In addition,
one agency said Ozalid for a few copies, 1,:erox for many copies (using the
same master copy).
Clearance with the Budget Bureau
The letters to the Budget Bureau, requesting clearance of proposed reports,
are signed by the same officials that sign the acknowledgment letters, ex-
cept as follows:
In 4 cases the General Counsel signs the letters to the Budget
Bureau, whereas the agency head signs the acknowledgment
letters.
In 3 cases the agency head signs the letters to the Budget Bureau,
whereas the legislative officer signs the acknowledgment
letters.
In 1 case the agency head signs the letters to the Budget Bureau,
whereas the General Counsel signs the acknowledgment letters.
In other cases for which no notation was made regarding acknowledgment
letters, the letters to the Budget Bureau are signed by the
deputy agency head in 1 case, the general counsel in 1 case, and
the agency head in 2 cases.
In 9 cases a form letter is used for transmitting proposed reports to the
Budget Bureau, and in 2-4 cases individual letters are typed.
In 18 cases the anticipated clearance paragraph is typed onto the proposed
report at the time it is originally prepared (subject to possible revision
after Budget Bureau review). In 16 cases the clearance paragraph is not
added until the actual clearance is received.
In 9 cases the reports are signed before the usual copies are transmitted
to the Budget Bureau for clearance; in these cases the signed copy is held
in a special file so as to avoid premature release. In 25 cases the reports
are not actually signed until the Budget Bureau has cleared them.
One agency said "The Budget Bureau advises that" is typed onto the reports
prior to Budget Bureau clearance, but that the remainder of the sentence is
left blank, although the reports are actually signed before being sent to
the Budget Bureau. After clearance, the remainder of the clearance sentence
is typed onto the report and it is then dispatched to Congress.
One agency stated that, when the reports are first typed, "THIS IS NOT A
FINAL REPORT" is included on page 1, and the clearance paragraph is enclosed
in brackets. After Budget Bureau clearance, the report is retyped without
these safeguards.
One agency said reports, which have been signed by the agency head prior to
submission to the Budget Bureau for clearance, are not mailed to Congress
after Budget Bureau clearance until this action is authorized by the assistant
Approved For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
 Approved For Release 2004/07/09 :,,CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
general counsel for legislative matters or his immediate superior, the asso-
ciate general counsel. If there is substantial delay in securing Budget
Bureau clearance (for example more than three months), the report, even
though it has been signed by the agency head, is again presented to him for
advice as to whether the report currently reflects his views.
One agency said all mail forwarded for signature, from the legislative d--'vi-
sion, is returned directly to the divl4sioq after signature (rather than to
the agency's mail room). Whe:q a report is forwarded for signature but not
to be mailed, a note to this effect is paper,.clipped to the signature page
and the report is so assembled that it canngt be mailed out by mistake
(certain materials which must: go with the file, when mailed, are held back).
Three agencies actually date the reports to Congress at the time they are
sent to the Budget Bureau for clearance, but 32 do not.
Release of Copies of Reports
Five agencies release copies of their reports to persons other than the
addressees without request, 29 do not, and 2 usually do not.
There was considerable variation in the policies as to who are eligible
to get copies of reports upon request, as follows:
11 said anyone, but that they check with the committees first.
(Several of these said they do not check with the com-
mittees if the reports have been made public in a public
document, such as hearings, committee reports, or?Congres-
sional Record. Two said they usually, but not always, check
with the committee. One said they check with the committee
in the case of authors of bills, but that in other cases
they ask the requesting party to check with the committees.)
6 send copies only to other agencies.
2 send copies only to other agencies and committees and members of
Congress.
1 said any "authorized Government official."
1 said press, members of Congress, and organizations having an
obvious interest.
1 said anyone, if the report is published and clearance is obtained
from the committee..
3 said anyone, without checking with the committee.
1 said probably anyone, without checking with the committee.
1 said the interested public, without checking with the committee.
1 said persons or offices with official interest.
1 said requests are usually referred to the committee, but that
separate letters are sometimes sent, stating the agency's views.
1 said copies are furnished only within the agency.
1 said furnished within the agency and sometimes to others.
2 said copies are not given to anyone.
1 said copies are generally not given to anyone.
1 said anyone having an interest, except where confidential material
relates to a private bill or claim.
1 said usually only those to whom the committee would furnish copies.
Approved For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
 Approved For Release 2004/07/09. CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
Thirteen agencies check with committee staffs before sending copies to
authors or others, 14 do not, and 11 generally do not. In most cases the
check with committee staffs is made by phone, and 1 agency specifically
stated that a record is made of the contact.
Two agencies send copies to the ranking minority member, and 3 do so in the
case of 1 committee each, at the request of the ranking minority member.
(Question 6d on the questionnaire apparently was not clear, so the replies
are not meaningful; but several agencies said they had not had occasion to
face this question, which involves the practice that is followed when
ranking minority members request to have copies of reports sent to them
regularly.)
General
In 11 agencies rough drafts of reports are routed within the agency for re-
view before the reports are typed in clean form with the usual number of
copies. In 19 agencies the reports are typed in clean form with copies be-
fore being routed for review within the agency. In several agencies the
method of handling is determined on an individual basis.
In 26 agencies the reports are typed in a central office, while in 8 agencies
they are typed in a program unit of the agency.
Most agencies have some sort of system for obtaining preliminary policy review,
prior to drafting reports, in selected cases. In 7 agencies the selections
of cases are made by the general counsel or legislative officer, in 2 agencies
by an assistant secretary, and in 2 agencies by the program units. In 8 of
the agencies most of the policy determinations are obtained through discussion,
in 2 agencies by memorandum, and in other agencies by a combination of these
methods or by unspecified methods.
The following techniques were stated for insuring that deadlines are met and
that reports are not unduly delayed:
Weekly reports on pending "priority" cases, weekly meetings with the
assistant secretary for legislative matters, and routine and special
follow-ups by the legislative division.
Upon receipt of a congressional request for a report, a completion
target date is estimated by the attorney to whom the case is assigned
(after consultation with :interested divisions and offices) and posted
on a central control card. If the target date is more than 30 days,
the requestor of the report is so advised by letter. Strict controls
are maintained in the offices of the agency head and the general
counsel to complete the report on or before the target date or to ad-
just the target date.
All deadline cases are posted on a blackboard with a time schedule
for completing each step.
Monthly status report.
Approved For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
 Approved For Release 2004107/D9j: CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
All cases are recorded on a visidexcar"' file system. These cards
have appropriate tabs in color to indicate status of report and
deadlines. In addition, the second in command in the legislative
division diaries all deadlines and is responsible for insuring that
deadlines are met,
General counsel receives weekly progress reports from attorneys to
whom work is assigned.
A central offieg establishes firm due dates and maintains follow-ups
to insure meeting the deadlines.
Those cases with deadlines are flagged and periodic check is made.
Others are allowed to run their normal course, since most officers
respond within a month.
In 25 agencies the agency head or acting head signs the reports, in 3 agencies
the deputy head, in 5 agencies an assistant head, in 1 agency an assistant
to the head, in 1 agency the head or deputy head, and in I agency the general
counsel.
Thirty-four agencies said they try to answer all requests for reports. Four
said they are selective on the basis of such factors as the following:
Likelihood of consideration; pressure of work; inability to agree; extent of
pressure from Budget Bureau or conunittee; relative importance to the agency;
ascertainment from committee staff whether it is necessary to submit a re-
port when no action is expected; arrangements for committees to furnish in-
formation as to bills they expect to consider.
If requests for reports are still unanswered at the time the second regular
session of Congress adjourns sine die, 10 agencies go ahead and submit the
reports anyhow, 8 cancel the cases unless the committees specify that they
want the reports during.adjournment, 4 make a determination on the basis of
individual cases, 3 submit proposed reports to the Budget Bureau and let that
agency decide whether to. review them, 2 generally submit reports during ad-
journment but not always, 2 make individual determinations usually on the
basis of informal contact with the committee staffs, 2 do not submit reports
after adjournment, 2 inquire of the committees whether they still wish to
receive the reports, 1 generally cancels the pending cases, 1 cancels unless
there is specific indication that. the committee still wants a report or un-
less it is to the agency's advantage to have its position "firmed up," and 1
has not had occasion to face this question.
Miscellaneous procedures were described as follows:
One agency types reports in final form on duplimat, which can be used
to make copies for use of the agency, the Budget Bureau, and Congress,
thus eliminating the retyping of individual reports.
One agency uses a Stenofax machine to cut stencils electrically and
states that this has resulted in quicker, more accurate, and more
readable copies.
Approved For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
 Approved For Release 2004/07/069 - CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
In one case a two-stage procedure has been found helpful in multi-
lithing proposed reports. The agency multiliths at one time all
copies needed both for Budget Bureau clearance procedure and for
submission to the committee, but they assemble only:the copies needed
for clearance. After Budget Bureau clearance they add the appropriate
paragraph by an over-stencil, make any other needed revisions, and
assertible the report for submission to the committee and for general
distribution.
One agency has developed model letters to be used as guides.
When a proposed report is submitted to the agency head for approval
and transmittal to the Budget Bureau for advice, one agency gets
clearance initials on the file copy of the proposed report, as well
as on the file copy of the transmittal letter; and they state that
this saves time when Budget Bureau advice is received.
Program units submit proposed reports to the legislative office in
final form with all necessary clearances except those in the office
of the agency head.
A rubber stamp is used, stating "no objection" advice from the
Budget Bureau, on copies for internal use.
A briefing memorandum accompanies all important or involved reports.
Copies of proposed reports are sometimes sent to the Budget Bureau
informally in advance of, or in place of, formal submission.
One agency obtains additional time for preparation of reports on en-
rolled bills by noting the final Congressional action early in the
mornings following such action, then arranging for work to begin on
the reports prior to receipt of the Budget Bureau requests.
In cases involving major policy questions, one agency obtains policy
determinations, prior to the preparation of the legislative reports,
by circulating to top officials statements setting forth the policy_
questions and recommendations, with requests that those statements be
returned to the legislative division with notations as to the attitude
of each such official. If' there is a disagreement among these offi-
cials, the case is usually sent to the deputy agency head to make or
arrange for a decision as to the agency's position.
Approved For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
 Approved For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
Mr. John S. Warner
Legislative Counsel
Central Intelligence Agency
Approved For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
 Approved For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8
Approved For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400040005-8