Mr. BLUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. Yet in 1974 you had a program under public works of what size?

Mr. BLUNT. $174 million.

Mr. ANDREWS. How much do you anticipate for 1975 under the revised budget?

Mr. BLUNT. $160 million.

Mr. ANDREWS. You are asking for 20 more people to do less work, then.

Mr. BLUNT. If you measure the work which has to be done by our public works people by the amount of grant funds.

Mr. ANDREWS. The amount of grant funds would determine the number of grants, would it not?

Mr. BLUNT. Not necessarily, because the size of the grant varies. Mr. ANDREWS. Are you saying, then, the average size of grants will go down in 1975 over what it was in 1974?

Mr. BLUNT. What I am saying is that the relationship between the amount of grant money and the number of people is an imperfect one. What the request was really based on was the fact there is an increase of the monitoring load as our increased number of projects and as the backlog of approved projects as well as projects which have to be put to bid and then under construction accumulate from past years. For instance, we have one such as the project Congressman Smith mentioned. I think this is one of the principal reasons.

Another, is as you can see in looking over our personnel record of the past few years, there has been a great deal of attrition over the years. To a certain extent we have no control or little control over the rate of that attrition, so there also has been in fiscal 1974 a deficiency in the number of people we had at that time.

We are now suggesting that that deficiency should be relieved.

ADDITIONAL 1975 WORKLOAD

Mr. ANDREWS. You feel in 1974 you did not have enough people to adequately handle the amount of loans and grants you had at that time?

Mr. BLUNT. I am suggesting that as a possibility. I also want to point out that under the new authorities we have the prospect in title IX of a $30 million increase, and much of that money undoubtedly will be public works money, although we cannot tell in advance exactly how it will be used. There may also be some additional work necessary for the public works people in connection with 304 money, although there should not be a great deal.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS

Mr. ANDREWS. The story I get is that the staff people there have processed these applications for grants and then say, "It is all in order, you are in fine shape, but we have no grant money." If you have enough people to say everything is in order but you need only the grant money, why does it take such a sharp increase to dispense the grant money when your people already are saying everything is fine except you have to get grant money?

39-600 O-74-4

Mr. BLUNT. I don't believe, taking the end of the last fiscal year as an example, that we carried over more than five or six applications. Mr. ANDREWS. In other words, you had only five or six applications ready to go that were deferred because of no funding available? Mr. BLUNT. At the application stage that is right. There were undoubtedly other projects identified but not actual applications.

Mr. ANDREWS. If there were only five or six applications for the money you had available then, more than you could take care of, why do you need the increase? Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? If you ended up after the more minimal scale last year, with five or six applications hanging around, what justification is there for the additional grant money?

Mr. BLUNT. The fewer applications left over, the more work it takes to obligate the funds. In fact, the backlog would represent, if it were there, an opportunity to spread out the work in more orderly fashion and perhaps use fewer people.

Mr. ANDREWS. You said you had a backlog of only five or six applications.

Mr. BLUNT. That is right.

Mr. ANDREWS. So the demand really was not there if there was such a small backlog. In the Rural Electrification Administration we have hundreds of applications awaiting financing. They are awaiting the money. Here you come in with a big new grant appropriation. You will have more positions with an increase from $4.5 million to $5.7 million in funding for the bureaucrats down there, so you have an increase of more than 25 percent in bureaucrats to dispense fewer funds. If this is not empire building, what is it?

PREVIOUS FUNDING LEVELS

Mr. BLUNT. Our staff was about 925 people as of 3 years ago. The staff level has decreased considerably since that time.

If I may address the workload question, the backlog of projects, lack of backlog was the result of my instructions. During the time projects were being developed during fiscal 1974. the Agency's future in terms of the legislative authority as well as the amount of funds was in question.

In fact. in terms of exactly what statutory authority we would be developing projects under. we didn't know until just recently what that statute would say, so we really were not at liberty to develop a backlog.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT STAFF

Mr. ANDREWS. Under industrial development loans and guarantees in 1974 you had $20 million: in 1975 under the new increased estimate you will be handling $17 million, which is a cut of 15 percent. Yet you are asking for an increase from 73 positions to 87 positions, or an increase of about 20 percent to handle 15 percent fewer funds. Here again we see the same strange relationship. What have you to say on that?

Mr. BLUNT. Again I would say that during the fiscal year 1974 we were operating at a very low manning level. The request reflects a need to bring that manning level back to one which is more consistent with the amount of money we are operating with, and also during fiscal

1975 a great deal of the work which will be done by those people will be as a result of loans which were actually obligated in fiscal 1974.

PLANNING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE STAFF

Mr. ANDREWS. Under planning, technical assistance, and research you have the same program of building up the bureaucracy from 128 to 144 individuals, an increase of some 16 people to handle-under planning, technical assistance, and research-a decrease from $26.5 million to $15.7 million. You are decreasing it by almost 40 percent, but you still show an increase in the number of bureaucrats you need to take care of a reduced program.

You seem to have the programing and staffing set up to take care of the bureaucrats and not the people this program is designed to help out in the field.

Mr. BLUNT. As far as the planning area is concerned, you will notice that the planning budget for the district program for fiscal 1975 is zero. It is not contemplated by us that we would leave the districts abandoned for fiscal 1976. That means renewals will have to be prepared for the beginning of fiscal 1976, and we are not, in effect, abandoning activity in the district programs.

In addition to that we have a program requesting $5.5 million for assistance to States. This is a whole new area of activity for EDA. This will take a great deal of time and effort on the part of people to make those grants in a sensible fashion.

In all these areas, as far as I am concerned as a manager, it is quite clear to me that these people are necessary.

I would point out, as far as the agency itself is concerned, the net figures for the 2 years show a similar amount. Year-end 1974 staffing was 650 permanent employees, which is exactly the amount we are contemplating now.

HISTORICAL STAFFING LEVELS

Mr. ANDREWS. You mentioned 910 people as your peak in the empire.

Mr. BLUNT. I don't know the exact figure.

Mr. ANDREWS. All right.

Mr. BLUNT. I prefer not to call it an empire.

Mr. ANDREWS. Whatever you call it, the peak staffing of your

Agency was what?

Mr. BLUNT. 923.

Mr. ANDREWs. In what fiscal

Mr. BLUNT. Fiscal 1971.

Mr. ANDREWS. What was the total appropriation in that year? Mr. BLUNT. Approximately $230 million.

CURRENT PROGRAM LEVELS

Mr. ANDREWS. What is your total appropriation for 1975 under the revised estimate?

Mr. BLUNT. For fiscal 1975, if the supplemental is approved, we will have $235.7 million of program funds.

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.