of $6,633,000 is therefore, a reduction of $84,000. The number of people we had on the pay roll at the time we appeared before the House committee is almost exactly the average employment that we believe we could finance under the President's budget.

Senator O'MAHONEY. What is the status of the supplemental pay bill?

Mr. Cor. It is in the deficiency bill now pending before the Senate. I believe they are having a meeting on that in another room this morning.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Yes. Was it in the first or the second deficiency?

Mr. Cor. It is in the second deficiency.

Mr. Cox. It is in the grouped appropriation of approximately $92,000,000 for the cost of Public Law 900 in the second deficiency. Senator O'MAHONEY. How much did the House allow for that? Mr. Coy. $367,000.

Senator O'MAHONEY. The House approved that amount?
Mr. Cor. They did.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Did you ask the deficiency subcommittee for an increase in that amount?

Mr. Coy. No, $367,000 is what we are asking for.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Does that deficiency appropriation include any increased number of employees?

Mr. Cor. No; it does not. That would take care of the 1,349 employees we had on the rolls as of February.

Senator O'MAHONEY. That amount in the deficiency bill is not enough to cover the increase of $442,431 which you testified about a moment ago?

Mr. Cor. That is correct.

The figure, on the basis of the average employment for 1949 of 1,360, we estimated would be $438,436.

BASIS OF PERSONNEL ESTIMATE

Senator O'MAHONEY. What is the explanation of that estimate? Mr. Coy. The President's budget indicated we should lower our average employment from 1,386 to 1,360. By doing this we were able to absorb $71,436 of the estimate for Public Law 900. The amount of $367,000 is the net requirement, exclusive of the amount we can absorb. We could have had an average employment of 1,386. I think the amount we must absorb accounts for the difference.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Why are you below your average?

Mr. Cor. We have had difficulty in getting some of the kinds of personnel that we need, particularly professional personnel.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Is there any way by which you can reduce the number of employees and thus save money?

Mr. Cor. One way is when we have to, Senator. The other way is not do the work that you have to do.

QUESTION OF EMPLOYEE WORK LOAD

Senator O'MAHONEY. The statement is made that from time to time in Government bureaus, there are a lot of people who draw big salaries and who do not do much work. Is that true of the Federal Communications Commission?

Mr. Coy. I do not believe it is.

Senator O'MAHONEY. What steps do you take to see that that is not true?

Mr. Cox. We have a very small organization of only 1,350 people approximately, and it is not too difficult for us to know whether people are working or are not working. We believe that they are putting in an honest day's work every day, not just occasionally, and that we could use more people to do the task that we have, and use them effectively.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Do you take any steps to make certain that that is the fact?

Mr. Coy. Yes. We have our administrative management studies made all the time.

CONTINUOUS MANAGEMENT STUDIES

Senator O'MAHONEY. Let us have that for the record, please.
Mr. Cor. We do make such studies.

Senator O'MAHONEY. You might tell us how you do it. In other words, I want the full committee to know from your testimony what is being done and how it is being done, that is, how you make sure that all of the employees do give a full day's work.

Mr. Cor. We are continuously studying the procedures for handling the various classes of applications that we have before us.

I think I can best illustrate the approach to the problem by this: We try to get our rules for the various services approved in such a way that we can reduce application handling to a minimum, so that instead of having to be examined by the professional people, it can be determined that applications fall within the rules and can thus be granted.

WORK OF STUDY ILLUSTRATED

Safety and Special Services is a good example of that. We have our management people at work all the time developing revisions in our forms and procedures so that it will be easier for the clerical staff in the secretary's office to handle them. We have made studies since I have been at the Commission with reference to the handling of broadcast applications to see if we could not improve the method of handling them. We are just now about to move into the broadcast field to have our hearing examiners put out initial decisions; heretofore they have made recommendations to the Commission, and the Commissioners have put out initial decisions in these cases. If we are able to get that completed, which I think we will within the next few weeks, the Commission will be relieved from having to hear the hearing cases in all of the fields presented to the Commission before an initial decision is issued. The examiner's decision would go out; if exceptions were taken, the Commission would hear argument by counsel of the parties on the basis of the exceptions. We believe that would save a considerable amount of time, both of the Commission and the legal bureau. We have under way considerable discussion now about other reorganizations of the Commission based upon studies made by our management people looking toward two things; one, a functional organization of the Commission as against what is best described as a profes

sional one; and, two, the proposal that the Commission itself be divided into panels.

There is some belief that the latter step would expedite the work of the Commission. All members of the Commission would not be required to concern themselves regularly with all phases of the Commission's work. Instead, it is proposed to break down the Commission into three panels corresponding with the functional organization of the Commission.

That has been under study now for the greater part of a year by our people, and we are hopeful that we may be able to get something done about it that will increase our productivity.

METHOD OF SUPERVISION

Senator O'MAHONEY. Does that have to do with your supervision of the employees to see that they really do the job?

Mr. Cor. On the supervisory side, the Commission is divided into the professional organizations of law, engineering, accounting, the secretary's office, and the administrative bureau. Each of those bureaus has people who supervise the staff. The groups are small enough so that there is adequate supervision.

One of the difficulties I think that we have is that the Bureau heads are responsible to the Commission itself. It is rather difficult for seven people to give supervision. That is one of the arguments advanced for a functional organization. The Commission would then have a Director of Broadcast Activities, a Director of Common Carrier Activities, and a Director of Safety and Special Service Activities with complete supervision over all of the processing of applications and rule making in the several fields; today that supervision is divided among the three professional bureaus.

I believe supervision could be tightened up by functional organization. While we are moving in that direction, I cannot assure you that the Commission will be in complete agreement on how we will feel on that. At least there is general interest in the studies that have been made, and we are proposing to go right ahead and see if we can find a way of achieving that kind of an organization to meet the very problem that you are talking about.

Senator O'MAHONEY. When you made your request of the Bureau of the Budget, how much money did you ask for?

JUSTIFICATION OF BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. Cor. The amount was $7,921,000.

Senator O'MAHONEY. How did you justify that much larger sum than the appropriation?

Mr. Cor. We justified it on the basis of the work load of the Commission, the work load that we have pending before us, and the number of matters pending and expected, particularly in the common carrier field. I refer to the work load that we have before us, the expanded application receipts we see coming in, some of the new services that have just been established in recent weeks, many of them since the war, plus the many things in the common carrier field that, during the war period, the Commission pushed aside because of the large number of applications that came in.

Senator O'MAHONEY. What are these new services you say are about to be established?

Mr. Cor. The new services are largely in the field of safety and special services. I would like to ask Commissioner Webster to talk a little bit about that.

AMOUNT OF OVERTIME BY STAFF

Mr. WALKER. If I may, Senator, I would like to suggest that credit be given for overtime. We are not talking about overtime, of course; but I have been around there for 14 years and I know that these chaps work on Saturdays and on Sundays. As a matter of fact, they work too hard. You may want to check up on them and find out whether they are working or not. I tell you now that if I were sitting in your place, I would want to find out whether they are taking reasonable time to rest.

We have too much work down there, and those chaps are working. They do not restrict themselves to an 8-hour day. They stay there until 6 o'clock at night. They stay there at night, and they come back on Saturdays and some of them on Sundays.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Do not take it out on me.

Mr. WALKER. You are trying to find out whether they work; I am telling you.

Senator O'MAHONEY. I am giving you an opportunity to answer. I want the record to show exactly what is going on.

I might say, Mr. Commissioner, that only in the morning paper I read a statement that Congress ought to reduce these appropriations so as to squeeze out the drones. Now, it is for you to tell us whether or not there are any drones in the Federal Communications Commission; and, if so, how many, and if not how you know that there are

not.

Mr. WEBSTER. I would like to echo the Commissioner's remarks with regard to what the staff does because I have been a part of the staff in my career, and I know every one of these men in the room here, and I know that they do work in the evenings and they work on Saturdays and on Sundays because I have worked with them. I have some of them up in my office repeatedly, and it ends up with a job that they know they have got to do after hours, Saturdays, and Sundays.

FEDERAL WORKERS GIVE HONEST DAY'S WORK

Senator O'MAHONEY. Perhaps I ought to put this in the record: I have been observing the operations of the Federal Government for many years, too many, sometimes, I think. I began observing them way back in 1917, and I have no hesitation in saying that, by and large, the great majority of the Government workers give an honest day's work for pretty good pay when compared with the pay that can be obtained out in the country. But, nevertheless, I think the Government worker, as a whole, is a loyal, patriotic, and industrious citizen of the United States who is doing his best.

However, that does not excuse any Government bureau from putting all of the facts on the record. It is the business of this committee to find out what is going on and how.

Mr. HOLL. Can one Government worker thank you for the rest of them?

Mr. WEBSTER. I have a great respect for them because I have been working for the Government now for 40 years.

NEW SERVICES OF COMMISSION

This chart I have here is an easy way to point out the new services. We will begin with police, the fire services of the country, and the forestry and conservation services throughout the country.

The forest services are beginning to use radio, and that is all for safety, public safety, and so forth.

With reference to highway maintenance, all of the States and the cities of the country are beginning to use radio on their highway maintenance work throughout the Nation. Then we have a lot of miscellaneous, and special emergency uses. As examples take the Red Cross and various other organizations that use radio in disasters and other emergency conditions.

DEMANDS FOR SERVICE

Senator O'MAHONEY. Commissioner Webster, is this Commission inventing this new service, or does it come about because there is a demand from the country?

Mr. WEBSTER. The demand is there, Senator. I would like to stress that, because I, for one, in the Commission, have done all I could to hold down the use, not because I want to hold it down and not let the Nation use it, but because the radio spectrum that we have at our disposal is so limited that there has to be some culling out and a limiting factor thrown in. These are actual demands. The police have been growing by leaps and bounds for the last 5 years.

NUMBER OF POLICE RADIO STATIONS

Senator O'MAHONEY. When you speak of the police, do you mean the police force in the various cities of the United States?

Mr. WEBSTER. And the State police and the sheriffs.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Can you let us know how many sheriffs and how many State police forces are asking for this service?

Mr. WEBSTER. I just do not have that at my finger tips.

Mr. Cor. As of April 30, we had 4,618 police, 118 fire, 546 forestry, 161 highway maintenance, 83 special emergency, for a total of 5,526 users in the public safety radio service we are talking about.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Will you read the figure in this first category?

Mr. Cor. In the case of police, 4,618.

Senator O'MAHONEY. That does not mean individual policemen, does it?

Mr. Coy. That is the number of radio stations operated by police departments.

Senator O'MAHONEY. So that you are not talking about individuals in giving us this list, but you are talking about radio stations? Mr. Coy. That is correct.