ANALYSIS OF REQUESTED INCREASES BY ACTIVITIES Mr. PRESTON. This request is in the amount of $4,700,000, an increase of $319,885. On page 13 we find the item broken down into about 6 activities. Mr. Rizley, will either you or someone you designate please speak to this increase that is shown on page 13? We want a justification for each of these increases as briefly as you can give it. Mr. MULLIGAN. Of the amount shown for "economic regulation" $132,100 is the increase for annualization in connection with the 3 programs that were approved by Congress for 1956-route cases, rate cases and the field audit activity. Under the activity "Safety regulation," the increase is a minor adjusting one. The $39,000 for accident investigation and analysis is to permit the recruitment of additional accident investigators to replace a number of men on the staff now who are at or near the retirement age. In a sense, it is a nonrecurring item in that when those men retire and are replaced, we do not anticipate any net increase in the staff in that area. The $32,000 shown for legal activities is made up of 2 things: First an annualization item of $18,800 to put on a full-year basis the increase in staff in that area to support the route and rate programs during 1956, and a small increase of $12,200 for 3 additional positions. The $23,340 shown for administration and service activities is $5,000 for annualization and $17,000 for the purpose mentioned in the estimates, namely, to establish a central files unit for the Board as a whole. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL Mr. PRESTON. How many new positions are there in this activity? Mr. MULLIGAN. All of the increases combined represent a total of 25 new positions. Mr. ROONEY. In connection with this request for 25 new positions, how do you explain your coming to us last year and telling us we were going to save on subsidy if we gave you so many additional employees? We gave you how many new employees last year? Mr. MULLIGAN. 58. Mr. ROONEY. And that you were going to become more efficient and therefore would be able to save the taxpayers money on subsidies. Now you come along and state that your program for subsidy in 1957 is going to be $3 million to $3.5 million more than it is in the current year, even with the 58 additional employees and, on top of that, you now ask for 25 new ones this year? Mr. MULLIGAN. I think the best answer I can give you, Congressman Rooney, is that when we came before you a year ago we were forecasting subsidies based on our best and honest estimates in the amount of $64 million for the fiscal year 1956. During this year a number of very important cases have been settled, with the result that the subsidy for 1956 has been reduced to $43 million and the savings that are reflected in the difference of $21 million between those 2 years will carry forward into 1957, except insofar as it relates to Pan Äm's capital-gains item. So if you will compare the earlier estimates with the current estimates, there is a very substantial saving. COMPARISON OF 1956 SUBSIDY ESTIMATES BASED ON ACCRUAL AND EXPENDITURE METHODS Mr. FLOOD. Would that mean under this Senate bill 3449, if that became law, that this figure of $46 million for 1956 on an accrual basis you would expend that instead of the $34 million which you list on an expenditure basis? Mr. MULLIGAN. I am not sure that I know what that bill is. Mr. FLOOD. S. 3449. Mr. MULLIGAN. That is the capital-gains bill? Mr. FLOOD. Yes. Does that mean, from what you just told Mr. Rooney, if that became law, that you would spend this $46 million in 1956 on an accrual basis instead of $34 million which is set up on an expenditure basis? Mr. MULLIGAN. The subsidy would probably be greater if that bill became law. Mr. FLOOD. That is the point. Then you would spend $46 million on an accrual basis instead of $34 million on an expenditure basis, if that bill became law. Mr. MULLIGAN. No; not necessarily. Mr. FLOOD. Sure you would. Mr. MULLIGAN. Let me explain. First, the $46 million is an accrual figure. Mr. FLOOD. I know what it is. I am asking you what would happen. Mr. MULLIGAN. Regardless of the pending bill, our expenditure figure of $34 million would still be an expenditure figure; it might vary slightly. As Chairman Rizley stated this morning, there are some items involved in cases still pending, but which in the aggregate total $12 million, which we assume, for purposes of the estimate, will be available for recovery and thereby reduce the payments in 1957. Mr. FLOOD. You have restated my question in other language, but that does not answer the question. The question I asked you was if the Senate bill became law, would you spend $46 million instead of $34 million? Mr. ROTH. May I answer it this way? This budget estimate of the Board is prepared on the basis of the present Civil Aeronautics Act. It is my opinion that if S. 3449 is enacted into law, we have not asked for a sufficient subsidy appropriation. Actually the subsidy accrual figure will be higher, but I am not in a position to say what the amount would be. Mr. FLOOD. Then it is very likely if that bill became law, the figure for subsidies would be $46 million, most likely, rather than $34 million on the expenditure basis here? Mr. ROTH. I would say the $46 million figure would go up on an accrual basis and the $34 million expenditure figure would also go up. Mr. FLOOD. In direct ratio? Mr. ROTH. Yes. Mr. RIZLEY. We ought to keep the record perfectly straight. You mentioned S. 3449. We testified today both ways on that bill. Two members of the Board are against it; two members of the Board are for it. Mr. FLOOD. I did not know that. Let me ask this question, then. PRINTING OF BOARD DECISIONS Mr. PRESTON. The next item to inquire about is the $15,000 requested as an increase to permit the printing of 4 volumes of the Board's decisions. Now, it has been pointed out to the committee by a member of the District of Columbia Bar Association that the lawyers are handicapped in representing their clients because they cannot get the decisions promptly, even the slip decisions. What will this do toward bringing the bound decisions more cur rent? Mr. MULLIGAN. In the fiscal year 1955, Mr. Chairman, the Board spent $13,600 for printing Board decisions. In the current fiscal year, 1956, we have programed $24,000 for printing Board decisions and that will result in printing through what we call volume 15, which will take us in point of time through June 30, 1952. The $45,000 increase-no, I beg your pardon-you are quite right, the increase is $15,000 with the total estimate $45,000-would enable us to print volumes 16, 17, 18, and perhaps part of volume 19. If we were able to print volume 18-we feel reasonably certain of that-it would take us in point of time through March 31, 1954. Mr. PRESTON. You would still be about 3 years behind? Mr. MULLIGAN. Yes, sir. Mr. PRESTON. Why can that not be brought more current? Mr. PRESTON. Why do you not ask for the money to do it? Mr. MULLIGAN. There was a question as to how much we should ask. ESTIMATED COST OF BRINGING THE PRINTING OF DECISIONS CURRENT Mr. PRESTON. That is a small item. We should not be talking about it. Ask for enough money to get current and let us quit delaying these things 3 years. There is no excuse for having people deprived of the Board's decisions. In the future I hope you will bring a request that will put this thing on a current basis. How much will it take to get current? Mr. MULLIGAN. It would require additional staff as well as printing money. We could readily give an estimate. Mr. PRESTON. Give us one for the record at this point. Mr. MULLIGAN. Yes, sir. (The information requested follows:) PROJECTED COST IN 1957 OF PRINTING AND BINDING THE BOARD'S ECONOMIC DECISIONS TO THE POINT OF CURRENCY Volume 16. July 1952 through January 1953. 7 volumes at $15,000. 4 new positions: 2 legal digest clerks and 2 editorial clerks__ Total Deduct amount for printing and binding included in the 1957 estimates_ Additional increase required_--- $105,000 20,000 125,000 45, 000 80,000 |