for the fiscal year 1951 are followed. An extra year or two would be re to complete the widening mentioned above. 3. That portion of the river between Omaha and Sioux City now ca 2-foot to 4-foot channel. The most optimistic predictions for a 9-foot would be during fiscal year 1957 or 1958, although it is confidentially stat for repetition, that such a completion date would only follow if large lun appropriations were made in the next 3 or 4 years. Only $750,000 is prov 1951 which would limit any work on the river seriously. Fort Randall Dam is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1952, and th rison Dam in 1953 and should provide a more even flow of water and quently improve navigating conditions. A. Classified tonnage handled on the Missouri River, calendar year 194 Mr. STEFAN. Are they showing any better financial report? Secretary SAWYER. We did bring about quite a satisfactory and pleasing change in the financial picture but our chief problem is that our equipment is so worn out that we can hardly operate it. We cannot get insurance on the shipments and the whole problem is very serious. We now have a request before Congress to give us enough money either to operate the lines effectively or give me permission to wind it up, one or the other. Mr. STEFAN. When you say wind it up, Mr. Secretary, do you mean lease it or liquidate it? Secretary SAWYER. I mean end it. We will have to do that. We have this one tow, the Harry Truman, which has operated effectively at a much reduced cost, and it gives some indication of the fact that we can do a good job if we get the equipment. Of course the purpose of Congress as stated originally and as is still the purpose, when this thing is in a fairly successful status, we sell it to private business. That is what we were supposed to do. DISCUSSION OF INCREASE REQUested for FISCAL YEAR 1951 Mr. STEFAN. In your statement you say the Commerce Department is asking for the largest amount of money ever requested of Congress to run your Department for the next fiscal year and that you are very much concerned about the size of the request for this gigantic sum of money. Secretary SAWYER. I am. Mr. STEFAN. In the hearings last year you stated your concern was going to be to save some expense. You were hopeful that when you reported to us this year you would show some savings. I believe that you asked the Budget Bureau for about $105,000,000 more than you received. LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATIONS Secretary SAWYER. I think you should let Mr. Gladieux answer the details of that question but I think that of the $103,000,000, more than $100,000,000 is for the liquidation of prior years contract authorizations. Mr. STEFAN. How much was that for liquidating prior contract authorizations? Secretary SAWYER. It was $100,000,000. Mr. STEFAN. Then the rest of the increase you ask of the Budget amounts to how much? Mr. GLADIEUX. Perhaps I can give you some helpful figures: The total 1951 request of the Department is $782,000,000; of that amount, $536,485,000 is for the liquidation of prior year contract authorizations. That is for CAA and Public Roads. With regard to that amount, $536,000,000, we have no discretion in effecting so-called budget reductions. That figure simply represents the cash to pay commitments previously authorized by the Congress. There is in addition to the $782,000,000 some $75,836,000 for contract authorizations for 1951. So the area of budget discretion, as it were, is very narrow. It comes down only to something like $200,000,000. I think it is fair to say that there is only about 200 or 250 million dollars of this entire budget which is subject to budgetary discretion. in the sense of being subject to reductions. Mr. GLADIEUX. That is right. Mr. STEFAN. Then we are dealing with a $606,000,000 increase Mr. GLADIEUX. That is taking off all the nonrecurring items. Mr. STEFAN. That is what we have to look at. Secretary SAWYER. We have the Bureau of Public Roads in th That is important. Mr. STEFAN. You are asking for $455,900,000 for that item, know about that. But when we look at your break-down, we h to look at this 1950 adjusted, which is $176,000,000 plus; 19 $782,491,000, or an increase of $606,000,000. That is a tremend increase to justify before Congress today, when the people dem less spending and more economy in government. Mr. GLADIEUX. Of course, $455,000,000 of that amount is for Bureau of Public Roads. Mr. STEFAN. I qualified that because under the reorganization inherit the Bureau of Public Roads which is asking for $455,900,0 Mr. GLADIEUX. Some $42,000,000 is also for Federal airport grams. I think the simplest way to get this straight is from Secretary's statement where we indicate that there is a net incre in appropriations for the fiscal year 1951, of $103,000,000. Mr. STEFAN. Where does that $250,000,000 come in? AMOUNT SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION Mr. GLADIEUX. The figure $250,000,000 I was indicating result you eliminate all of these nonrecurring items and liquidation of vious contract authorizations, and get down to a program basis the normal, regular functions of the Department of Commer Then the budget of the Department of Commerce is around $2 000,000. That is the amount Mr. Cawley's office can work on. Secretary SAWYER. That is what he wants to know about. Mr. STEFAN. For your office alone, Mr. Secretary, the approp tions were about $617,000 in 1940. That has jumped to a request $1,530,000 today, as compared with $1,299,000 last year. Secretary SAWYER. Did you say 1950, there? Mr. STEFAN. Yes; 1941 was less than that. 1941 was $557,0 It never reached the million mark until we hit 1949. Mr. GLADIEUX. Of course Congressman Stefan we have, since 19 included in the budget of the Office of the Secretary, the entire Off of Technical Services which was not there before. Mr. STEFAN. We inherited some new activities. Mr. GLADIEUX. That is right. The entire Office of Techni Service is included there now. PERSONNEL Mr. STEFAN. Do you know how many employees work under Department of Commerce, just offhand, approximately? Mr. GLADIEUX. We say between 45,000 and 50,000, according how you count certain part-time people such as weather observers Mr. STEFAN. Are you asking for many new positions this ye over all? 60785-50-pt. 5-3 Mr. GLADIEUX. There are some, yes. Mr. CAWLEY. We are asking for an increase in average employment from 41,124 in 1950, to 44,268 in 1951. Mr. STEFAN. Out of a total of how many new employees? Mr. CAWLEY. Approximately 3,100 average employees. [NOTE. When testifying on the seventeenth decennial census the Bureau of the Census revised the figure on average number of employees for 1951 from 7,744.3 (originally reported) to 8,171.6, an increase of 427.3. A corresponding increase, therefore, should be reflected in the total increase in average employment in 1951 over 1950 from 3,144 to 3,571.] Mr. ROONEY. Excuse me, Mr. Stefan. You are getting into details and figures at this point. We are discussing the general policies of the Department. We have not as yet started to investigate increases in employees and increases in appropriations. Mr. STEFAN. There is a general question. We have a request for 3,100 new employees in the entire Department. I am just bringing that up to relate that to the statement of the Secretary when he was here a year ago, that he was going to show some savings this year, or attempt to show some economy. Mr. ROONEY. As long as you have asked the question and it is already in the record please insert at this point a chart showing the agencies to which these 3,100 additional employees are to be assigned. Mr. CAWLEY. Yes, sir. (The information requested is as follows:) Statement showing increases or decreases in average employment, 1951 over 1950 Represents 70 percent of gross increase. Mostly employees for Seventeenth Decennial Census. When testifying on the Seventeenth Decennial Census the Bureau of the Census revised the figure on average number of employees for 1951 from 7,744.3 (originally reported) to 8,171.6, an increase of 427.3. Corresponding increases, therefore, should be reflected in the total net increase from 3,144 to 3,571 and in the figure for the Bureau of the Census from 2,322 to 2,749. AIRPORT PROGRAM FUNDS Mr. STEFAN. I have another general question, Mr. Secretary; something mentioned about the airport program. I want to ask a general question about that: We will find after we get into these justifications, that there are a number of States which have reached their expansion point insofar as constructing new airports. We will also find that there will be considerable money being turned back from various States which can be used by the administrator to place into other States where the expansion has not been reached, or the peak of expansion has not been reached. However, there will be mainte nance of presently existing airports. The money will be used there for buildings, developing landing areas, and so forth. Quite a few Members of Congress from various States who still want to continue maintaining their present airports, in spite of the fact they may not need to build new ones, are fearful that perhaps this money that is going to be turned back may be lost to them for needed maintenance and development of buildings and existing facilities and that the money will go into the large airports and that the large communities will get the lion's share of the Federal airport aid program. Have you looked into that? Secretary SAWYER. Do you mean the portion that would go to the large airports? Mr. STEFAN. Yes; and the small airports that would suffer as a result of that. As Secretary SAWYER. No. I know we cut down drastically what was requested by the CAA originally for this airport development. I do not know what we knocked out but it was a very large amount. between the large and small airports I cannot answer your question. Mr. STEFAN. I thought you had an over-all policy from the Secretary's Office down on that. Mr. GLADIEUX. The budget policy for the last several years has been not to grant the $110,000,000 for the Federal aid to airports program which now would be required under the authorizing legislation but to reduce that to a program of $40,000,000. Secretary SAWYER. The Congressman asked about the division between big and little airports. Mr. STEFAN. I asked that because several Congressmen have been saking how much they can expect for their airports for the next fiscal year and if there will be diversion. Secretary SAWYER. There is no policy as far as I know about it, distinguishing between the large and small airports. As far as I am concerned there is a policy of not throwing money away just because we have it and if that is what is implied in your question, I can say that we have reviewed the requests of the CAA, and they feel that they have been held down quite drastically. That applies to large as well as small airports. FEDERAL POLICY REGARDING AIRPORT OPERATION Mr. STEFAN. We will get to that when we get to the CAA, but I want an over-all statement from the Secretary on that. What is the policy of the United States Congress and the Government of the United States with regard to operating airports? Secretary SAWYER. Do you mean as to whether or not we should get revenues from them? Mr. STEFAN. No, actually operating. The only civilian airport which the Government operates is the National Airport in Washington and then there are two airports in Alaska. We are building one and operating another. Those are the only two civilian airports that the national government operates or is going to operate. Now what is your policy? Secretary SAWYER. To expand that or restrict it? |