Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Total, personnel compensation___.

12 Personnel benefits: Health benefits, retirement, FICA, life insurance_

21 Travel and transportation of persons:

23 24

Professional staff (70 days, at $80).

Consulants (60 days, at $105)-.

[blocks in formation]

Printing (2 reports, at $2,200 and GSA duplicating service).

25 Contractual services:

National Academy of Sciences, National Council on Radiation
Protection__.

Administrative operating fund (GSA) ––

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare'.

Total, contractual services__

26 Supplies and materials__

31 Equipment---.

Total____.

60, 800

4,500

5, 600 6, 300

11,900

1,000

4, 400

35,000 10, 400 50

45, 450

1,500

1,000

130, 550

1 Health room.

BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. FOGARTY. The appropriation for 1966 is $166,000 and the request for 1967 is $131,000, a reduction of $35,000. Your justifications do not indicate the reason for this reduction.

I thought that was the main thing the justification was for, to explain the increases or decreases.

NUMBER OF NEW REPORTS REDUCED

Dr. TOMPKINS. I am sorry if I left something out. The change in the budget from last year comes entirely from a reevaluation of the number of new reports the Council would be asked to make.

Mr. FOGARTY. Is this a question of reporting?

Dr. TOMPKINS. Yes. For each report we have to set up a special panel of experts to make a study, which requires consulting fees and travel.

BASIC GUIDES FOR RADIATION PROTECTION

Mr. FOGARTY. The justifications say that you recommend basic guides for radiation protection.

Dr. TOMPKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. FOGARTY. What are these guides?

Dr. TOMPKINS. The Council has put out seven reports of which four are devoted to what are called basic guides. The first two give the numerical value of radiation dose to be used in connection with occupational exposure. Another value is to be used for regulatory purposes for any exposure that involves the general population coming

from what the Council has defined as normal peacetime operations, such as reactors in the nuclear field, things that are used either industrially or medically.

The second report devoted to the same purpose dealt with levels of environmental contamination from iodine 131 [Thorium], strontium 89. and strontium 90. These values are concerned with, I might say, the maximum contamination of the environment that the Council thinks should be associated with byproducts of nuclear technology.

HEALTH PROTECTION ACTION REPORTS

The other reports, five and seven, are called health protection action reports. These were done at the request of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy to provide guidelines for State officials and the Federal Government to indicate the conditions under which health protection action should be taken as the result of environmental contamination. These values are higher than would be allowed for the planned release values.

These are the four reports that deal with basic guidance.

BUDGET ON RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH ACTIVITIES

Mr. FOGARTY. What do you think of the budget you have just listened to for radiological health activities in the Public Health Service?

Dr. TOMPKINS. From where I sat it sounded more or less reasonable. Mr. FOGARTY. It did? They asked for $23,445,000 and the Secretary cut them back to $21,939,000, and the Bureau of the Budget gave them another cut. Do you still think it is a pretty good budget with a cut of over $3 million? Some of these people used to tell us we ought to spend more in this field and now we are going the other way. Why not eliminate the whole thing entirely, then?

Dr. TOMPKINS. I would hate to see that. I think as far as budgeting problems go

Mr. FOGARTY. What do you think about it? Do you think that figure they asked for, $23,445,000, is a good one?

Dr. TOMPKINS. I have no basis for making a judgment on that. I have not studied it specifically.

APPRAISAL OF BUDGET ESTIMATE

Mr. FOGARTY. The same thing is happening to you. You will not be around very long with the type of budget you are presenting today, $131,000, a reduction of $35,000. How long do you think you will last with that kind of budget?

Dr. TOMPKINS. Well, the budget represents our best estimate.
Mr. FOGARTY. What did you ask for?

Dr. TOMPKINS. Exactly that.

Mr. FOGARTY. That is what you asked for?

Dr. TOMPKINS. Yes.

Mr. FOGARTY. You proposed cutting it $35,000?

Dr. TOMPKINS. Yes, based on a revised workload. I see no point in

asking for money we will not spend.

Mr. FOGARTY. Why not eliminate the Council?

Dr. TOMPKINS. Well, I think the Council serves an exceedingly useful purpose. It is one of these situations where our social needs involve common activities by several agencies of government with different viewpoints. The main role of the Federal Radiation Council is to reconcile the differences to a common viewpoint for whatever subjects are outstanding at the moment.

The next report will probably deal with protection in mining. That is now in development.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Denton.

Mr. DENTON. No questions.

Mr. FOGARTY. Thank you, Doctor. You did a good job, and I didn't mean my questions to be unfriendly-as they probably sounded. Dr. TOMPKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1966.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

WITNESSES

HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR

JOHN F. HENNING, UNDER SECRETARY OF LABOR

LEO R. WERTS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION RICHARD E. MILLER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET ADMINISTRATION

STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY

Mr. FOGARTY. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Secretary, you may proceed.

Secretary WIRTZ. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have on previous occasions tried to summarize this statement. At this time I have cut it down for you, and I think it would be very hard to cut it still further. With your concurrence, I will go through it as it is.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear once again before this subcommittee to explain the Department of Labor estimate for 1967 and to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. I think it will be helpful to say at the outset that this estimate has been prepared with full attention to the committee's critical reactions to last year's budget estimate, and that so far as I can be sure, the 1967 estimate reflects unqualified acceptance of those criticisms.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF 1967 ESTIMATE

The total estimate for 1967 is $1,226,845,000. On a comparable basis for 1966 this represents a net increase of $20,795,123 of which $167,373 is proposed to be derived from general fund appropriations and $20,627,750 from trust funds. Attachment No. 1 gives the detail of

this for each account and we have separate justifications to be presented by office and bureau heads. The largest single item of increase is $23 million for annualization of the expanded youth services program authorized by Congress in 1966.

EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS

The estimate requests authorization for a total of 9,016 full-time positions. This is a net increase of 222 positions. The detail is also reflected in attachment No. 1 and will be justified again by the office and Bureau heads; 238 of these positions are related to the training and employment service programs: 80 relate to Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training; 17 relate to an increased workload and backlog problem in the Bureau of Employees Compensation; 74 relate to needed improvement in the collection and analysis of economic data; and, this is partially offset by a reduction of 107 positions in other areas of lower priority.

(See p. 142.)

There are certain items which have department wide application that I call to your attention before commenting on the program changes.

MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS-COST REDUCTIONS

The estimates before you reflect savings of $15,895,990 and a reduction of 131 positions. Careful review of our operating experience warrants the conclusion that these savings can be achieved without harmful effect on the programs involved and can then be applied to essential activities. Had these savings not been made the request would have been increased by the same amount in order to achieve the same productivity. This will be a continuing program for the Department. Attachment No. 2 identifies these changes by account and in detail. (See p. 144.)

ANALYSIS OF EXPENDITURE DATA

Careful attention has been given to estimated actual expenditures in relationship to the obligational authority requested.

Attachment No. 3 shows the detail of estimated expenditures by

account.

(See p. 145.)

The relationship between these two sets of figures should be reasonable and rational, and should be based on experience where actual data are available.

Our 1965 experience shows that for salary and expense accounts for the Department as a whole, actual expenditures for the fiscacl year were 98 percent of the obligational level authorized by Congress. The same experience is reflected for 1966 and 1967.

For nonsalary and expense accounts such as those which finance training programs or those which finance unemployment or workmen's compensation benefit payments we have again relied on our 1965 experience in developing the expenditure estimates and we estimate that actual expenditures will be about 75 percent of the obligational authority.

ESTABLISHMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES IN REGIONAL OFFICES

One of the objectives of the Department is to decentralize to our regional directors authority to act on certain administrative functions. Units to assist regional directors in carrying out these responsibilities have been established.

Several years ago we set up in nine regions units to provide office services such as duplicating, mail, messenger and space services, and so forth. This activity has been financed out of the working capital fund via reimbursement by the Bureaus on the same basis that identical services have been supplied on a central basis to Bureaus and Offices located in Washington. Our people in the field have commended the operation and my personal inspection of it in several regions confirms their view.

Currently, in 1966, we are going one step further and decentralizing certain personnel activities to the regional level. This will provide better and faster service to our regional office program managers. The action has been recommended by the Civil Service Commission. Surveys were made to determine how much money the bureaus were spending on personnel services for the field and this total is proposed for transfer from the bureaus to the Office of the Secretary appropriation to set up seven regional administrative offices to provide personnel services to all field programs and to supervise the other centralized office service type operations now being provided. No additional dollars are involved because the transfers from the bureaus to the Office of the Secretary are offsets.

We have not proposed that this be financed out of the working capital fund since present working capital funds authority does not cover providing centralized personnel services to the bureaus and offices of the Department. If the committee wishes to expand this authority to cover this type of centralized service then the resources involved could be retained in bureau appropriations for reimbursement to the working capital fund.

There is attached a table showing the detail of the proposed comparable transfers for this purpose and the location and staffing for the central services being provided.

(See p. 146.)

FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM COSTS

Throughout the estimates there is shown an increase item for this area of cost. For all bureaus the increase is $65,700 for 1967 over the 1966 estimate of $438,500. One explanation of this item to cover all accounts will perhaps save the committee time in evaluating this for each account and there is attached a table showing appropriate detail for each account.

(See p. 147.)

The amounts included are based on 1965 telephone usage and partially supplemented by a sample use survey made by GSA during the fourth quarter of 1965. Based on this information we should have asked for $248,000 instead of $65,700 but I think we can make savings here, and the estimate reflects an absorption of $182,300 or about 74 percent. We have started an evaluation of our own to

« PreviousContinue »