of their assistants and department chiefs and bureau heads and, of course, the Secretaries have presented to this committee a very clear and comprehensive and understandable statement in their attempt to advise us what they need and why. It is true there have been glaring exceptions, but I can borrow the old adage that exceptions never prove anything except that they are exceptions. I have listened to a mass of testimony, some of it important and highly technical, for several weeks. And from that I am surprised that there are not more glaring exceptions. I am impressed rather by the ability of the majority that have been here. I am sure that the Department of Commerce-at least we hope so-will join that majority and not the unfortunate exceptions that have been here. I might point out that we are functioning as a democracy. There is no doubt that there are many glaring faults in administration of government under a democracy. We have seen some of them here. I would like to point out, however, that we who live in a democracy I think are so much enamored of the vast majority of good things that come to us under this form of government that we are willing to put up with the evils that of necessity are part of this kind of system. Certainly under the balance of powers within this Government of the executive and the judicial and the legislative, we are constrained from time to time to put up with the human elements that exist in all of these three branches. There is no doubt that some good things could be added to the functioning of each department. In the presentation of the budget to the Legislature this year there was nothing peculiar, nothing unusual about the method or the procedure in which that budget was presented by the President to the Legislature. The fact that there is fine print in a budget message is not a condition peculiar to this budget or any other anywhere else. We find that while there may be improvements in the procedure, yet at this time we must point out that the processes which have been followed have been followed carefully in the constitutional sense. The requirements laid down by the Legislature and the Constitution have been complied with and whatever defects might exist in the procedure are defects that exist by a careful following of the Constitution and the acts of the Congress. I suggest that we proceed, if there is no objection, to an analysis of the different sections of the Department. Secretary SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, would you prefer to have me stay, or may I be excused at this time? Mr. FLOOD. We have no reason to ask your presence here, Mr. Secretary, unless you prefer to stay. We are going into the details now. Is there objection to the Secretary leaving, if he so desires? Mr. STEFAN. Of course not. Secretary SAWYER. I should be very glad to stay if you wish, but I am afraid from this point on the contributions from my staff will be much more valuable to you. Mr. FLOOD. We are very glad you came. Secretary SAWYER. Thank you very much. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1949. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY STATEMENTS OF BERNARD L. GLADIEUX, ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY; FRANCIS R. CAWLEY, DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET OFFICER; MATTHEW HALE, ACTING SOLICITOR; GEORGE C. VIETHEER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION; GERALD RYAN, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER; WILLIAM H. SHAW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROGRAM PLANNING; AND DONALD BURGESS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLICATIONS SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS, 1950 Appropriation, 1949 (regular bill). Supplemental appropriations (Second Deficiency Appropriation Act, 1948). Deduct: Comparative transfers to other appropriations. Appropriation carried to surplus fund (Public Law 785). Base for 1950 Net difference, 1950 over 1949: Mr. FLOOD. We will take up first the item which is "Salaries and expenses," of the office of the Secretary. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF POSITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS, 1948-50 If there is no objection, we will insert at this time in the record the summary of estimated obligations on page 9. (The summary is as follows:) 1 Based on pay-roll records and approved commitments. 2 The total annual salaries of the 299 full-time positions for 1949 and 286 for 1950 are $1,236,029 and $1,225,776 respectively. NOTE. Positions represent total number of positions, man-years, average number of positions. APPROPRIATION AVAILABILITY, 1949, AND ESTIMATES, 1950 Mr. FLOOD. With particular reference to that part of the chart on page 7 which indicates that the appropriation for 1949, in the regular bill, was $1,025,000, the notation should be made that there is an item, "Comparative transfer for printing and binding," of $96,000, which was formerly a separate item, added to which there is the proposed supplemental due to the pay increase of $30,000, making the base for 1950 fiscal year $1,151,000. After taking into account the various increases and decreases by activity or function, we get a net figure of estimate of appropriation for the fiscal year 1950 of $1,119,000. COMPARISON OF PERSONAL SERVICES, 1949 WITH 1950 I notice on page 7, under item Arabic numeral 1, by activity or function, policy planning and executive direction. There you list an increase of $48,866. How do you explain that increase? Mr. GLADIEUX. Mr. Chairman, if you will turn to page 11, you will find the details of that broken down. The general function of policy planning and executive direction, as you see, takes in the immediate office of the Secretary, the office of the Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Solicitor, Office of Program Planning, and Office of Publications. Mr. FLOOD. It might be well to insert in the record the chart on page 11 of the justifications. (The chart referred to is as follows:) Policy planning and executive direction Mr. FLOOD. What is the increase in personnel in this item? Mr. GLADIEUX. As indicated on page 11, we are requesting a total of 56 positions and 52.1 man-years. You will notice the increase from 16.1 man-years to 52.1 man-years, as between 1949 and 1950. That explains the increased cost. For example, we have not had an under secretary for a large part of this year and that reduces the 1949 man-years. Mr. FLOOD. May I interrupt at that point to indicate this; that I have before me a newspaper item from the Washington Star of February 24, 1949, which states as follows: President Truman today announced that he is appointing Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney now Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Air to be Under Secretary of Commerce. Mr. GLADIEUX. Mr. Whitney expects to take his oath of office on April 4. Mr. FLOOD. Will you proceed, then, Mr. Gladieux? Mr. GLADIEUX. The explanation, as I have indicated, for the increase in cost is because of the increase in man-years, which refers to an annualization of certain positions. Mr. FLOOD. Annualization? Mr. GLADIEUX. Full-year cost next year of what we have only paid part this year. For example, we have not had an under secretary at all this year so far, so there will be a cost for this position only from April to June. But next year we will have to finance the entire salary of the office of the Under Secretary. Mr. FLOOD. Does this budget request provide for the expenses necessary and incident to an under secretary? Mr. GLADIEUX. Yes, it does. You will notice on the second line of that chart, under "Office of Under Secretary," six positions this year and six positions for 1950. But employment has only been two to date. There have been two secretaries carried over. But coming April that will go up to six again. IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF SECRETARY Mr. FLOOD. What was the number of employees for the immediate office of the Secretary last year and this year? Mr. GLADIEUX. The same; eight positions and eight employees in 1949, and the same is requested for 1950. Mr. FLOOD. The cost for the immediate office of the Secretary for 1949 is $40,170 and estimated for 1950, $45,334. Why is that? Mr. GLADIEUX. Again the same explanation, annualization of certain positions which have only been partially filled in the current year and, in order to keep the record straight, the cost of certain reclassifications, Ramspeck promotions, etc. That is the fiscal explanation. Mr. FLOOD. Would that include increases under Public Law 900? Mr. CAWLEY. Yes, sir. OFFICE OF UNDER SECRETARY Mr. FLOOD. I notice, under the office of Under Secretary, still directing your attention to page 11, you had six positions last year and you are asking for six this year. Last year you had a cost of $8,444, that is, the present fiscal year, and for the next fiscal year you are asking for six positions at a cost of $34,550. Why is that, with the same number of people? Mr. GLADIEUX. Again, in the current year, 1949, actually we have had no Under Secretary since Mr. Foster resigned last May. So the figure 2.3 man-years that you see there really represents only 2.3 secretaries carried over. But again in 1950 we expect that full staff to be in place; and, therefore, we will require the full amount; $34,500 cash. We just have not needed all that cash this year because of the vacancy in the Under Secretaryship. WAE EMPLOYMENT AND EXCESS OVER 52-WEEK BASE Mr. FLOOD. I direct your attention now to page 11 of the justifications and that part thereof which refers to WAE employment and excess over 52-week base. Apparently there is no difference anticipated in the excess over the 52-week base for 1950, as opposed to 1949, the actual figures being $1,056 for 1949 and $1,146 for 1950. Mr. CAWLEY. That results first of all from the fact that we have 26 pay periods in each year, and there is an extra pay day in each year. The difference in the amounts is the full-time utilization of the positions as distinguished from the fractional utilization in the current year. Mr. FLOOD. Then the explanation is that it is a matter of bookkeeping, plus the calendar. Mr. CAWLEY. Yes, sir. |