Mr. ANDREWS. The $230 million level is the total in comparison with the $235 million level you are asking for now?

Mr. BLUNT. The two cover exactly the same program except there will be new authorities as enumerated in my statement in this fiscal year under which the moneys can be spent.

Mr. ANDREWS. Some way or another we want to get away from the theory and philosophy which prevailed in 1971 when it seemed you were grossly overstaffed and get back to the operation of 1974 when you had a lean and hard-working staff. If you were dispensing more money in 1974 in all categories than in 1975, all the categories I mentioned, with significantly less staff, would it not be in the best interest of the taxpayers and the goal of this committee to get you back in line with your performance of 1974?

Mr. BLUNT. If I thought it was in the best interest of the taxpayers, I would not ask for the people.

Mr. ANDREWS. In other words, then, you think you have made sour loans or sour grants in 1974 because you did not have enough people to do the job?

Mr. BLUNT. No, sir.

Mr. ANDREWs. You made no mistakes in 1974 under that reduced staffing situation?

Mr. BLUNT. I don't know whether I made mistakes in 1974, but we will find out as time passes. I don't believe I did.

Mr. ANDREWS. Why can't we emulate that period of time rather than getting this newly ballooned bureaucracy?

Mr. BLUNT. Without belaboring the point, I think I can do a better job and better carry out the instructions of Congress and the purpose of the program if I had the people working for me that the budget requests.

EMPLOYEE GRADE LEVELS

Mr. SMITH. As you know, Mr. Secretary, GS-9's, 10's, 11's, and 12's are technical grade levels, and in passing civil service tests for those levels a person needs skill, experience, or both. You are proposing to have a total of 176 of those working management level people.

A GS-13 in contrast is the political appointee level, and it is really easier to get a GS-13 than an 11 or 12. You are proposing 183 of GS13's, more GS-13's than 9's, 10's, 11's, and 12's put together. That seems a strange scheduling.

Mr. BLUNT. There are in the Agency under the proposed fiscal 1975 manning 12 "supergrade" positions, not all of whom are political appointees. GS-13 can be a political appointment, but it usually is not.

Mr. SMITH. For practical purposes we all understand those are political. It is easier to get a GS-13. All you have to do is put on paper that you have managed five or six people at one time or another and had some management experience. They are relatively easy to get. I went through 8 years of Johnson and Kennedy administrations, and I know people can be qualified for GS-13.

Mr. BLUNT. They must have been more clever than I because I have not been able to do that.

Mr. SMITH. But they cannot get a 12, 11, 10, or 9 that way. For those grade levels, they must pass Civil Service examinations showing technical experience and qualifications. This proposed schedule seems like an unusual weighting. I understand you need some 13's.

Mr. BLUNT. I would be willing to bet, although I do not have the figures before me, that 90 percent or more of those GS-13's started out at lower grades. You don't hire people as GS-13's.

Mr. SMITH. You would lose the bet. A lot of those were put in in the 1972 election year.

Mr. BLUNT. You notice I did not give the amount of the bet.

You made an assertion that most were put in during the election year. In terms of the turnover in our Agency in the election year, it is confined to political appointments. There has been tremendous fluctuation in the number of people we have had on board because of the extension of the Agency which has been in question, attrition has been greater at times, and so on. There was no wave of political appointments in 1972. I would go so far as to say there was only a small wave in 1969. I was here both times so I can verify that.

Mr. SMITH. It looks like an unusual weighting to me if you are out to get work done.

Mr. BLUNT. Are you implying GS-13's are not doing their work?

REQUESTED INCREASES BY GRADE

Mr. SMITH. I am stating, not implying, that if the purpose of this entire increase in personnel is because you have a lot of backlog, you would not want to increase GS-13's by 42 while increasing GS-12's by only 35, and 11's by 11. In other words, the work is done at the 9, 10, 11 and 12 level, not the 13 level.

Mr. BLUNT. The 722 positions in that list, including 183 GS-13's represent the 650 people who are on board today, so there would be no increase of GS-13's.

Mr. SMITH. Are you not proposing increasing GS-13's?

Mr. BLUNT. Increase over the request. The budget request was for an amount lower than what we have now. Our manning level todayMr. SMITH. How much of an increase are you proposing in GS-13's? Mr. BLUNT. Over what we have today?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. BLUNT. None.

Mr. SMITH. What is the breakdown of the 183?

Mr. BLUNT. The 141 reflects the way we would have broken it down if we had the amount requested in the original fiscal 1975 budget. The 183 represents the amount we have now. Forty-two is the difference, people you would have to get off the manning roles either by attrition or a reduction in force.

Mr. SMITH. What you are proposing is to have a staff which has 183 GS-13's.

Mr. BLUNT. We have a staff such as this.

Mr. SMITH. Do you have a breakdown of what the increase in personnel will be? That is the last line, is it not?

Mr. BLUNT. This is an increase from the previous request. The increase from the previous request would be 42. If we were operating under the previous request without the supplemental we would have to get rid of 42 GS-13 positions. They are on board today and have been for the last however many years.

Mr. SMITH. The fact still remains that what you are proposing is a staff which is topheavy with GS-13's.

Mr. BLUNT. In terms of what we have today and the balance of GS-13's as against others

Mr. SMITH. As I said previously, I think it is a holdover from 1972.

Mr. BLUNT. If you would like me to supply for the record the fluctuation in GS-13's in 1971 and 1972, I would be more than happy to provide it. In fact, in all of the GS-levels in our agency there has been a consistent reduction. In 1972 it was no exception.

STAFF REDUCTIONS IN 1973

As a matter of fact, between 1972 and 1973 we went from 870 to 672. I don't know the proportionate reduction in GS-13's, but I am sure it is there.

Mr. SMITH. In terms of getting work done it seems to me this is not the usual schedule of grades and ranges we see coming through this committee from various other agencies.

Mr. BLUNT. I understand.

PEAK PROGRAM LEVELS

Mr. ANDREWS. I checked up on this program money. You testified that the highest funding year was $235 million. The clerk checked it. In 1972 you had $260.8 million. In 1973 you had $271.5 million.

Mr. BLUNT. You asked us when our manning level was the highest. We gave you the year, 1971.

Then you asked how much program funds we had in 1971. We told you $230.8 million.

Mr. ANDREWS Let me rephrase the question. In 1973, when you a business of $271 million

did

Mr. BLUNT. Total in 1973 according to my information is $301.5 million.

Mr. ANDREWS. All right. At that point how many people did you have on board?

Mr. BLUNT. 672 at the end of the year.

Mr. ANDREWS. So for $301.5 million you got by with 672. Now to do $230 million worth of business, about two-thirds as much, you want an increase of 12 to 14 percent.

Mr. BLUNT. In 1973, the year in question, it was the year when we had expended in the neighborhood of $40 million of public works funds and some $10 million of technical assistance funds in response to Hurricane Agnes.

In addition to our permanent personnel, who were stretched very thin, and deserved every kind of commendation and worked oftentimes 15 to 16 hours a day during the course of this disaster, we had a large number of temporary personnel helping. We also had people assigned from other agencies.

Mr. ANDREWS. Then in that event, in 1972 what was your total program level?

Mr. BLUNT. $260.9 million.

Mr. ANDREWS. How many people did you have on board then?

Mr. BLUNT. 870 at the end of the

year.

Mr. ANDREWS. In 1967 what was the total funding level, to get figures from another administration?

Mr. BLUNT. I will be happy to provide that for the record.

Mr. ANDREWS. I understand that was some $277 million. What was the number of permanent positions then?

Mr. BLUNT. I will have to supply it.

The following information was provided:]

tual employment on June 30, 1967 was 966.

Mr. ANDREWS. I would like that to be provided for the record so we will be able to evaluate the workload level.

I think it is also important to point out, because of the inflationary trend and all of the rest of it, that in the case of these permanent. positions, not only is the number of positions increasing, but the pay per position is sharply up, so the total amount we are spending for processing is not directly related to the number of positions.

In the 1975 table 166 people were included, at $5,709,000, as against last year's 146 people at $4,521,000, so the pay per position is up sharply as well as the number of positions.

Mr. BLUNT. For what it is worth, the average grade over the last 3 years has been about the same. There have been a number of pay increases enacted by Congress, I guess recommended by the President as well, which have made the cost per person to all agencies as far as I know considerably higher. I cannot say I deplore it because I think they earned the money but that is something we have no control over. Mr. ANDREWS. The point I am drawing is that the ratio of dollars for staffing versus dollars for grants and loans is increasing at an even more pronounced level in the dollar versus dollar category than staff positions versus dollars.

Mr. BLUNT. Maybe what I should say is that the reason for the difference in relationship between the staffing level and the dollars to pay for the staff, putting aside their relationship to program dollars, one reason the dollars become higher is because of these increases.

GOVERNMENTWIDE REDUCTIONS

Mr. WYATT. I want to refer back to Congressman Smith's line of questioning. You are asking for an increase of about 25 percent in personnel for administration.

Mr. BLUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. WYATT. Do I understand the substance of your testimony to be that this increase has been approved by the OMB during the time they were aware of the President's announced determination to reduce Federal employment by approximately 40,000 bodies?

Mr. BLUNT. The best way I can phrase that is this: The request, when and if it arrives, and I assume it will arrive soon, will have been approved by OMB at some time after the President made his announcement. However, I also assume that any manning level and any amount of money spent for operations or programing is subject to constant review by the President and by OMB and that if the Office of Management and Budget in relationship to the job which has to be done feels that people can be spared from this agency they will take them, and take them with my blessing. Therefore, I don't think any action you take here will foreclose a review in light of the inflation and also in light of the efficiency of the agency regarding the number of people on the working force.

Mr. WYATT. You can appreciate our situation. We want to cooperate with the President. What we do is in connection with his effort to control inflation. It is important that we know exactly whether this is in process so we can have some input regarding the end result. Mr. BLUNT. I understand perfectly.

Mr. SLACK. If there are no further questions, we thank you, gentlemen.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS

JOHN J. McFALL, California, Chairman

EDWARD G. JORDAN, PRESIDENT

ALAN L. DEAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ADMINISTRATION

JAMES A. HAGEN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES PLANNING

RICHARD C. SULLIVAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

DOUGLAS L. SIEGEL, ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL

WILLIAM H. BOZMAN, COMPTROLLER

Mr. McFALL. The committee will come to order.

We will start our supplemental hearings with the United States Railway Association.

We have with us a number of witnesses headed by Mr. Jordan, president; along with our old friend Alan Dean, James Hagen, Richard Sullivan, Douglas Siegel, and William Bozman.

Do you have a statement, Mr. Jordan?

Mr. JORDAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. McFALL. It is a rather comprehensive statement. Could you summarize it for us, and then we will place your prepared statement in the record? Or, if you think it is necessary, you may read the entire statement.

Mr. JORDAN. If I may, I would like to read the entire statement on the presumption that this is perhaps the first time the committee has had an opportunity to hear from the association in its own behalf. Mr. McFALL. All right.

STATEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RAILWAY

ASSOCIATION

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before you in support of a supplemental appropriation request from the United States Railway Association. The association has had $18 million made

(54)