HEARING BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 33
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 1, 2002
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: May 17, 1955
• Content Type: TRANS

Approved F6r-Release2002,/05/09';!7CTA DP B00269R000100130001-
'COND URGENT DEFICIENCY
;PPROPRIA 'IONS , FOR 1955
HEARINGS
S I300MMI1tTEES 0
oQ)MITTEE ONAFFRoI'RIATIONS
fO1JSE, OF REPRESENTATIVES
}
a TYTOUR'I{ I CONGRESS
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
0"
Approved For Release'2002/05/09. CIA-RDP86B00269,RO00100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
SECOND URGENT DEFICIENCY
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1955
HEARINGS
BEFORE
SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1955
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5;
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
CLARENCE CANNON, Missouri, Chairman
GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas
HARRY R. SHEPPARD, California
ALBERT THOMAS, Texas
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, Ohio
W. F. NORRELL, Arkansas
JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi
GEORGE W. ANDREWS, Alabama
JOHN J. ROONEY, New York
J. VAUGHAN GARY, Virginia
JOHN E. FOGARTY, Rhode Island
ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida
ANTONIO M. FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
PRINCE H. PRESTON, JR., Georgia
OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana
LOUIS C. RABAUT, Michigan
SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
FRED MARSHALL, Minnesota
JOHN J. RILEY, South Carolina
ALFRED D. SIEMINSKI, New Jersey
JOE L. EVINS, Tennessee
HENDERSON LANHAM, Georgia
CHARLES B. DEANE, North Carolina
JOHN F. SHELLEY, California
EDWARD P. BOLAND, Massachusetts
DON MAGNUSON, Washington
WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky
DANIEL J. FLOOD, Pennsylvania
WINFIELD K. DENTON, Indiana
JAMES 0. MURRAY, Illinois
JOHN TABER, New York
R:[CHARD B. WIGGLESWORTII, Massachusetts
BEN F. JENSEN, Iowa
II, CARL ANDERSEN, Minnesota
WALT HORAN, Washington
GORDON CANFIELD, Now Jersey
IVOR D. FENTON, Pennsylvania
JOHN PHILLIPS, California
ERRETT P. SCRIVNER, Kansas
FREDERIC R. COUDERT, JR., New York
CLIFF CLEVENGER, Ohio
EARL WILSON, Indiana
GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin
BENJAMIN F. JAMES, Pennsylvania
GERALD R. FORD, JR., Michigan
EDWARD T. MILLER, Maryland
CHARLES W. VURSELL, Illinois
T, MILLET HAND, New Jersey
HAROLD C. OSTERTAG, New York
FRANK T. BOW, Ohio
GEORGE Y. HARVEY, Staff Director
KENNETH SPRANKLE, Assistant Staff Director
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
SECOND URGENT DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1955
SUBCOMMITTEE ;ON INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATIONS
ALBERT THOMAS, Texas, Chairman
SIDNEY R. Yates, Illinois JOHN PHILLIPS, California
JOE L. EVINS, Tennessee CHARLES W. VURSELL, Illinois
EDWARD P. BOLAND, Massachu- HAROLD C. OSTERTAG, New York
setts
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1955.
VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION
WITNESSES
F. W. KELSEY, CONTROLLER
J. D. BAKER, BUDGET OFFICER AND ASSISTANT CONTROLLER,
VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION
J. D. SHYTLE, JR., DIRECTOR, BUDGET SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS' BENEFITS
L. W. GOULDE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION
AND EDUCATION
P. N. BROWNSTEIN, DIRECTOR, LOAN MANAGEMENT AND LIQUI-
DATION SERVICE, AND
GEORGE REYNOLDS, DIRECTOR, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERV-
ICE, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' BENEFITS
READJUSTMENT BENEFITS
Mr. THOMAS. Gentlemen, the committee will please come to order.
We are pleased to have with us this afternoon representatives of the
Veterans' Administration who are here requesting a supplemental
in the amount of $28 million for fiscal 1955, for readjustment benefits.
Gentlemen, it is nice to have you with us again. We have with us
our friend, Mr. Kelsey, the Controller; Mr. Baker, the Budget Officer
and Assistant Controller; Mr. Shytle, Director, Budget Service;
Mr. Goulde, Special Assistant, Vocational Rehabilitation and Educa-
tion; Mr. Brownstein, Director, Loan Management and Liquidation
Service; and Mr. George Reynolds, Director of Property Manage-
ment Service, Department of Veterans Benefits.
At this point in the record we will insert a letter dated May 17, 1955,
from Mr. Rowland Hughes, Director of the Bureau of the Budget,
directed to the, President, dealing with this subject matter.
(The letter referred to follows:)
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
2
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington 25, D. C., May 17, 1955.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House.
Six: I have the honor to submit herewith for your consideration a proposed
supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year 1955 in the amount of $28,000,000
for the Veterans' Administration, as follows::
"INDEPENDENT OFFICES
"VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
"READJUSTMENT BENEFITS
"For an additional amount for `Readjustment benefits', $28,000,000, to remain
available until expended."
This appropriation provides for education and training allowances to veterans,
vocational rehabilitation of disabled veterans, loan guaranty payments, and
housing grants for disabled veterans.
The amount which has been. made available for obligation in the fiscal. year
1955 is $688,280,017, including a supplemental appropriation in the amount of
$155,000,000 provided in the Second Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1955
(Public Law 24). Since the supplemental appropriation was made, the estimate
of average training enrollment for veterans of the current emergency has grown
th se
from from $1,291 421,000 to to $1,330. An. dadthe estimated avera dit additional $2 ,000,000 isanecessary ttoa cover increased
requirements.
In addition, the loan guaranty program has been running at a much higher
level than originally anticipated, involving more property acquisitions because
of default of veterans' loans, and an additional $4,000,000 is required on this
account.
I recommend that the foregoing proposed supplemental appropriation be
transmitted to the Congress.
Respectfully yours,
ROWLAND HUGHED S,
Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
OBLIGATIONS BY ACTIVITIES
Mr. THOMAS. We will also insert page 3 of the justifications.
;(The page referred to follows:)
Obligations by activities
Presently
Fiscal Year
rovised
1965
Difference,
increase (-I-)
available
,
estimate
or decrease
1. Education and training:
----
$62,100,000
$62,480,00
-1-$380,00
Subsistence------------------------------------
-----
N
40,500,00
38,738,500
-1,761,550
Tuition---------------------------------------
(c) Supplies and equipment-------------- --- ---- ----
(d) Education and training allowance (Public Law 550) -
4,140, 000
543, 708, 567
4,514,000
567, 708, 567
F404,000
+24,000,000
Total education and training---------------------
650, 448, 567
673, 471, 017
+23,022, 450
B. Vocational rehabilitation for disabled veterans:
--
065,000
9
8,272,000
-793,00
(a) Tuition-----------------------------------------
(b) Supplies and equipment--------------- -------------
,
1,290,600
1,287, 900
-2,700
Total vocational rehabilitation for disabled vet-
erans----------------------------------------
10, 355, 00
9, 659, 90
-796, 700
3. Loan guaranty:
--
80, 000
+800,000
(a) Interest gratuities ---------------------------------
-
- ----
622,500
4
4,622,500
--------------
(b) Guaranty y losses -----------------------------------
(c) Loans and property acquired-----------------------
,
17,343,750
22,500,000
-15,156,250
Total loan guaranty--- --------------?--------------
21, 966, 250
---27,922,500
~-5, 956, 250
4. Housing grants for disabled veterans -------------------------
5,609,600
5'183, 00
-------..
- ---183,000
Readjustment allowances----------------------------------
5
.
Obligations incurred------------------------------------
688,280,017
716,280,017
+28,000,000
A ve or a eases%09 : CIA-RDP86
B00269R0001001
30001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
3
. Mr. THOMAS. We note here, Mr. Kelsey, that you need $28 million
for a deficiency for the remaining month of fiscal year .1.955, to her
spread over the activities of education and training; vocational re-
habilitation for disabled veterans; loan guaranty payments; housing
grants for disabled veterans, and read'ustment allowances.
I shall read from the letter by Mr. Hughes the following:
The amount which has been made available for obligation in the fiscal year
1955 is $688,280,017, including a supplemental appropriation in the amount of
$155 million provided in the Second Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1955
(Public Law 24). Since the supplemental appropriation was made, the estimate
of average training enrollment for veterans of the current emergency has grown
from 421,000 to 427,000, and the estimated average annual cost has increased
from $1,291 to $1,330.
An additional $24 million is necessary to cover these requirements.
As well as I recall, that supplemental sum was provided in April.
Getting down to figures now, I cannot figure out how you arrived
at this figure of $24 million.
On the basis of the figures set out here, you have an increase of
6,000 more trainees than you anticipated. Your cost has jumped
from $1,291 to $1,330, or $39. You figured this, I presume, on a
deficiency basis for 30 days, because you must be current. Your
checks must have been paid up to June 1, or certainly up to May 1.
Are you behind with any of your payments?
Mr. KELSEY. No, sir; we are not behind presently with any pay-
ments. Mr. Shytle, the budget officer, might elaborate upon that.
Mr. THOMAS. If I may so state, this is an obligation which is going
to have to be paid, and everyone wants to pay it, but I figure that
your outside liability for rehabilitation and training, instead of being.
$24 million, is $2 million, according to these figures.
How did you arrive at it?
Mr. SHYTLE. Mr. Chairman, when we were up here, as you ex
plained a minute ago, we had an annual unit cost of $1,291, and a
421,000 training load. Now, that training load is 427,000, and we
have a unit cost of $1,330.
Mr. THOMAS. You have an additional 6,000 trainees, at $1,330
per year. How much money does that amount to?
Mr. BAKER. $7,980,000.
Mr. THOMAS. You only have 1 month to go in your fiscal year.
How much is that? Is it $665,000?
Mr. SHYTLE. Sir, we are talking about a 12 months' average for
the year. So, it is $1,330, which would amount in total to roughly
$8 million.
Mr. THOMAS. You just said that you are current, and that all of
your bills are paid.
Mr. SITYTLE. Out of what you gave us recently, we have enough
money at the field stations to pay out bills to around June 10, we
believe, but on June 10 the stations are going to be without money,
and we figure that it will take this much.
Mr. THOMAS. I understand that. However, let us talk about
figures now.
You have only 1 month to go, we will say, in fiscal year 1955,
and you have 6,000 more enrollees than you anticipated.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
4
Mr. SHYTLE. No, sir; we have an average veterans-in-training load
of 6,000 for the entire year, based a on our revised figures.
Mr. THOMAS. Your justifications do not state that. Your justifi-
cations say that since the supplemental appropriation was made, and
that was made about the middle of April, the estimate of the average
training enrollment for veterans of the Korean emergency has grown
from 421,000 to 427,000.
Mr. BAKER. That is an annual average, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. THOMAS. But, it says "since."
Mr. SHYTLE. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about an annual
average.
Mr. THOMAS. If your bills are current up to June 1, you have
carried your average annual enrollment increase of 6,000 up to Juno 1.
Mr. SHYTLE. If we continued that line of thinking, Mr. Thomas, we
would have an expenditure for practically the entire training load for
the month of Juno, which would not be the 6,000 we are talking about;
it would be the total of over 400,000.
Mr. THOMAS. I do not see how you can justify that statement, when
your bills are all current, up to June 1.
You have evidently had enough money to pay your bills up until
June 1.
Mr. SITYTLE. We have.
Mr. KELSEY. It should be explained, Mr. Chairman, that the
greater part of our bills are paid on or about the 20th or thereafter of
the month.
Mr. SHYTLE. We start certifying them to the Treasury shortly after
the first of the month.
Mr. THOMAS. Taking your own figures, you have 427,000 enrollees,
which is 6,000 more than you anticipated.
Mr. SHYTLE. Yes, Sir.
Mr. THOMAS. And, the cost has jumped from $1,291 to $1,330, but
when you multiply it, you see what it gives you.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, that gives us $7,980,000, but you also
have to apply the increase from $1,291 to $1,330 to the entire 421,000.
Mr. THOMAS. When you add up the two, it gives you $2 million.
Mr. BAKER. It is, roughly, $16 million for 421,000 trainees, at the
rate of $39 increase in annual unit cost.
Mr. THOMAS. But, you have only 1 month left in the fiscal year to
go.
Mr. BAKER. Well, of course, we are still dealing in annual averages,
here.
Mr. THOMAS. However, your bills are current, and you only have I
month to go in fiscal year 1955. So, one-twelfth of that figure is
$1,330,000.
Mr. BAKER. But, one-twelfth of $600 million is quite a bit more
than that, you see. That is the thing we have to consider.
Mr. THOMAS. What are you going to do with the rest of the money
if your bills are current right up to the 1st of June? You only have 1
month in the fiscal year left.
Mr. BAKER. We will need, roughly, somewhere around $75 million
in the month of June to complete the year.
We have all of that we need within the present appropriation,
except $24 million in this category, and the $4 million in the loan
guaranty program,
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
5
Mr. THOMAS. That is what I am talking about: the $24 million.
How will you spend that?
Mr. BAKER. It will be spent to pay the bills which come in during
the month of June, if we pay all the veterans.
Mr. THOMAS. Are you not current right hp to the 1st of June?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir; but with a $75 million bill facing us, we will
have about $50 million to pay the veterans in training.
Mr. PHILLIPS. It is not $600 million. You have given yourselves
$32 million as leeway on that. It is $508 million. When you divide
that by 12, you get $47 million.
I think you are giving yourselves a little cushion; are you not?
Mr. BAKER. You are talking about this program under Public Law
550?
Mr. PHILLIPS. I am just multiplying your figures. I do not know
what specific public law it is.
Mr. BAKER. We have available at the present time $543,708,000
for Public Law 550. We estimate to complete the year it will take
$567,708,000.
Mr. PHILLIPS. I am not referring to this law or to that law, but I
am merely adding and multiplying figures. My difficulty is the same
as that of Mr. Thomas. Your statements do not add up to the figures
to which you say they add up.
We are trying to get figures.. If you did not have any money at all,
what you would need is $47 million, and you have some money. So,
you need a lot less than that. You said you had $75 million.
Mr. BAKER. I said our cost would be around $75 million.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Your costs will only be $47 million per month at
the most.
Mr. SHYTLE. No, sir; our expenditures through readjustment
benefits runs around $70 million a month.
Mr.. PHILLIPS. Then, apparently, this letter is not correct.
Mr. THOMAS. Take it another way: You have 427,000 enrollees
and that is 6,000 more than you anticipated. The cost has jumped
from $1,291 to $1,330. Multiply your $1,330 by 427,000, and you
get $567,910,000.
Mr. BAKER. That is right.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Which is $32 million less.
Mr. THOMAS. It really ought not to be multiplied by $1,330, but
one-twelfth of that.
Mr. PHILLIPS. One-twelfth of that is $47 million.
Mr. SHYTLE. We are working on annual averages. This training
load is projected by the month, and we figure out the average training
load for the year, and extend it by unit cost in order to get the total
cost.
Mr. Chairman, could I explain another thing here on this estimate?
Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SITYTLE. The 421,000 for the average training load for the
year, at $1,291, will cost $543,700,000, as you pointed out, Mr.
Phillips, which is the money that we have on hand now.
The 427,000 average training load for the year at $1,329.40, which
is the unit cost I have here, will cost $568 million, as you pointed out.
So, your difference there for veterans in training and your unit
cost on a total year basis is the difference in $568 million and $543
million.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
Ei
. Mr. PHILLIPS. That raises another question, Mr. Chairman, and
that is this:
. How long has the Korean conflict been over? There is no one in
this program now except the Korean veterans; is that right?
Mr. BAKER. Under Public Law 550; that is correct.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Therefore, your load is not increasing; is it?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. PHILLIPS. How could it be increasing?
Mr. GOULDE. The date fixed by the President's proclamation for
the ending of the period for becoming eligible or entitled to benefits
was February 1 of this year.
However, because those veterans who were already in service prior
to February 1, under Public Law 7, continued to accrue entitlement up.
to the maximum of 36 months, and actually, the whole load is con-
tinuing to increase rather substantially.
Mr. PHILLIPS. There are no World War II veterans in this program,
are there?
Mr. BAKER. Not in the Public Law 550 program.
Mr. GorLDE. There are some in these total figures.
Mr. THOMAS. Turn to your justifications, and let me refer you to
the second paragraph on page 5.
Here is another apparent discrepancy.
You state:
Of the $688,280,017 available for expenditure during fiscal year 1955, $566,-
283,013 was expended during the first 10 months, leaving a balance of $121,997,004
available for expenditure during the remaining 2 months.
Mr. KELSEY. As I say, with the total of $566 million for 10 months,
if you were to divide that, you would have an average of $56 million
per month, but the later experience-March and April, for example--
is running about $75 million a month.
So,. you cannot use the average.
Mr. THOMAS. Do you have enough money to carry you through
the month of May?
Mr. KELSEY. Yes, Sir.
Mr. THOMAS. What will be your unexpended balance on June 1?
Mr. KELSEY. About $46 million.
Mr. SHYTLE. That is correct; around $46 million.
Mr. KELSEY. That figure would be $121 million, minus $75 million,
roughly.
Mr. THOMAS. You feel it is costing you about $68 million a month?
Mr. KELSEY. It is nearer to $75 million.
INCREASE IN TRAINING LOAD
Mr. SITYTLE. It is variable. It has increased with each month due
to the continuing increase in the training load, and the number of
certificates which we have to pay.
In March, Mr. Thomas, when we came up here to get that $155
million supplemental, we told you that the end-of-the-month training
in March would be 570,000. That figure actually was 587,000, or
17,000 more.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09: CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
In April we told you it would be 578,000, and now at the end of
April we have veterans in training to the total of 603,000.
So, we have a continuing increase here, and we have more expenses
as the year progresses. The payments which we make in July are
for those veterans in training in June. So, July is your low expendi-
ture, and June is higher.
Mr. THOMAS. Why do you have this increase of $39 in cost per en-
rollee since April?
Mr. SHYTLE. Mr. Chairman, again, this $155 million estimate was
made in November-the latter part of November-but we went back
at that time to our experience on Public Law 346 as to the composition
of the training load.
That determines the rate, and whether they are full time, part time,
or whether they are in a higher institution, or job establishment, and
so on. The only experience we had for a big increase like this was to go
back to our past experience on Public Law 346.
Mr. THOMAS. Is the increase due to an increase in cost of supplies
and equipment?
Mr. BAKER. No, sir.
Mr. THOMAS. Your education and training allowance has not
increased; has it?
Mr. SHYTLE. Mr. Chairman, it is duo to an error that we made in
estimating the load composition at the time we determined it.
Mr. THOMAS. That is what I wanted to straighten out. It has not
been due to any increase in prices which you are supposed to pay?
Mr. SHYTLE. Very little.
Mr. THOMAS. The error is due to a computation as to numbers?
Mr. SHYTLE. That is correct, sir; and whether they would be in
higher institutions, or whether they would be full-time.
INCREASE IN LOAN GUARANTY PROGRAM
Mr. THOMAS. What is the situation in regard to this $4 million
item for foreclosures, and what part of it is for foreclosures?
Mr. YATES. What is this item for interest gratuities? As I remem-
ber, the Congress has eliminated interest gratuities. Why, then, are
you now asking for $800,000 for that purpose.
Mr. SHYTLE. That is for the payment of continuing commitments.
That figure also amazes the staff of the Veterans' Administration in
that we would continue to have to pay interest gratuities.
We have examined it in several different instances to be sure that
those were true commitments, because the law cut off 2 years ago.
Yet, K e have had, to date, some $600,000 worth of 4 percent
gratuity payments which we have had to pay through April.
Mr. THOMAS. It was an obligation and you could not avoid it.
Mr. SITYTLE. That is correct.
Mr. YATES. They are actual commitments?
Mr. SHYTLE. We did not estimate that this continued lag would be
in the program at all.
82835-55-2
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : ($IA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
Mr. THOMAS. Give us a picture now on your loan guaranty situa-
tion. I notice it is increasing here to the tune of $6 million. This is a
lump-sum appropriation for education and training, and it covers
your loan-guaranty program as well as your training. Actually, your
deficiency here is about $6 million, in round figures, although you are
only requesting $4 million.
You will use the remainder of it from your training fund, but what
about your buildings and the number of starts, and your foreclosures,
and what are your losses and the number of foreclosures?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. The reason for the increase, Mr. Chairman, is the
fact that we had an unprecedented loan volume last year; that, plus
the average loan amount having increased, accounts for the de-
ficiency.
Mr. THOMAS. Your program in this regard this year is exceeding
your experience of last year; is it not?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Yes, sir; it is at the moment; that is right.
However, of course, there is a timelag between early foreclosures
and the closing of loans.
Mr. THOMAS. You have loans, and property acquired in the amount
of $22.5 million, making a total in round figures of $28 million. What
is the difference between your two categories, loans and property
acquired?
Is that where you have to go in and pick up the paper, and your
losses are based upon the losses which you incur by virtue of picking
up the paper?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. The losses, Mr. Chairman, are due to the claims
which we pay where the Veterans' Administration is not salvaging
anything from the property.
The other acquisition cost which you mentioned-the larger figure
represents the amount which we pay out in order to salvage some of
our guaranty payments. We then acquire the properties, and resell
them.
Mr. YATES. Is the amount you are requesting the difference between
what it cost you, and the amount at which you will actually resell the
properties?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. No, sir; the amount we are asking for here is the
total amount that we will need to acquire the properties, and pay our
losses.
The amount for which we sell the properties will then go back into
miscellaneous receipts.
Mr. THOMAS. In other words, instead of having a cold $30 million
loss, that figure will be much less than that; is that right?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Yes, Sir.
Mr. YATES. You will have loss than that amount to go into an
inventory?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. That is correct.
Mr. YATES. What do you do with that real estate once it goes into
an inventory? Do you try to sell it?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. We do sell it.
NUMBER OF PROPERTIES ON HAND
Mr. THOMAS. How many properties do you have on hand?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. 2,202 properties on hand, as of March 31, and
that figure, I think, increased very slightly, and is now 2,295 properties.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 :d3IA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
Mr. PHILLIPS. What is the average loss on them?
Mr. THOMAS. Will you put into the record at this point a table
with the first column showing for fiscal years 1954 and 1955 the
number of loans made, the average amount, the number of fore-
closures, and the average loss per loan, and then the total loss for those
2 years of 1955 and 1956?
Mr. KELSEY. Yes, sir; we shall be glad to do that.
(The table requested will be supplied to the committee.)
AVERAGE LOSS ON INSURED LOANS
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Phillips inquired as to what your average loss
was per unit.
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Our average loss on home loans is running about
$500 per house.
Mr. THOMAS. What is the average loss on your business loans?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. It is about $800 on business loans.
Mr. YATES. What percentage is that of the loan?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Our losses on our primary mortgage home loans;
that is, where we have to take a first mortgage on a loan, runs about
five one-hundredths of 1 percent of the total volume.
Mr. THOMAS. You had better have 2 tables, 1 for homes, and the
other for business loans.
Mr. KELSEY. Very well.
(The table requested will be supplied to the committee.)
Mr. THOMAS. Does this $28 million cover homes and business loans?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Yes, Sir.
Mr. THOMAS. That table, then, will break it down between the two
items?
Mr. KELSEY. Yes, Sir.
Mr. THOMAS. The total loss you anticipate for fiscal year 1955 in
your Loan Guaranty Section, including home and business loans,
instead of being a round figure of $28 million, would be considerably
less than that?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Oh, yes, sir.
Mr. THOMAS. How much less? Is this a good average guess?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Well, if it follows the same pattern that has been
developed up to now, it should not run much over 10 percent of that.
Mr. THOMAS. Ten percent?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. THOMAS. How many homes have you taken back today-to
date--during fiscal year 1955?
Mr. REYNOLDS. We have had total foreclosures of under 21,000.
We have taken in 14,600 since the program started.
Mr. THOMAS. Do you mean that since it started 21,000 have been
foreclosed?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir.
Mr. THOMAS. How many foreclosures during fiscalTyear 1955 will
you have?
Mr. REYNOLDS. We has 2,509 acquisitions during the first 3 months.
of this calendar year, which will be the first quarter.
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. That is for the calendar year.
Mr. PHILLIPS. That is not cumulative; is it?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. No, sir; that is for the calendar year.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/01O CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
Mr. THOMAS. 21,000 is your cumulative figure?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. If I may, sir; that 21,000 is the total home-loan
-claims paid. There will be a difference between the number of fore-
closures and the number of claims paid.
Mr. THOMAS. Slightly, though?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Well, it could be rather considerable, Mr.
Chairman, because in some of the cases you see the guaranty is payable
in advance of foreclosure, and the loan may be worked out after that
date.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAINEES
Mr. PHILLIPS. If I understand your estimate, I think that it
:amounts to $28 million. What I do not understand is how you keep
increasing the number of students.
The Congress passed a law, making it possible for the people who
had served in World War II to get an education-which I thought
was one of the best things we had done-on the basis of for every
month they served, they received a month of education, or for every
year they served, they received a year of education.
Now, World War II has been over 9 years, and it only lasted 3
years for the United States. You say you still have people from
World War II who are on this list for which we are spending money.
Then came the Korean conflict and we included all of those people.
The Korean conflict has been over for 2 years, and you say your list
has not reached a peak, and is going steadily up.
I do not see how it can. Who wants to explain that?
Mr. GOULDE. I will explain it.
First, as to World War II, the, number remaining of that group is
small, percentagewise. It is not a large number.
Mr. PHILLIPS. No one can enter this program now who served in
World War II?
Mr. GOULDE. Well, let us separate them. There is one category of
veteran that can get in this disabled group under Public Law 16.
Mr. PHILLIPS. As a result of disability?
Mr. GOULDE. It would have to be a handicaping disability.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Do you mean they could still get in this program as
of now?
Mr. GOULDE. Yes, sir; they can get in it now. A man, for example,
who was totally incapacitated for years, after the termination. of
hostilities, and who spent all of his time in a hospital, for example, but
just now coming out of it, can get in.
The Congress took cognizance of that, and passed a law to permit
him to come in and be trained, The same would apply to a man
who was separated under conditions that may have been considered
other than honorable, but for whom the service has lately revised
his discharge. He never could have gotten in with a discharge other
than honorable, but now he can.
As to the nondisabled, the entrances are extremely limited. The
only extension beyond 1951 was for a man who reenlisted, Public
Law 190, and his date for beginning training was extended. He
was permitted to have up to a certain point to receive his training,
but the program except for those Public Law 190 reenlistments ends
next July for the nondisabled under Public Law 346, but not so for
the disabled, because of this group that we speak of.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
11
Mr. PHILLIPS. However, that is a limited group.
Mr. GOULDE. That is right; it is down.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Why should you list them? The number of bene-
ficiaries under the law should be going down instead of up.
Mr. GOULDE. Well, I will explain that, but just one comment on
the World War II group: The number of nondisabled has exceeded
what we anticipated. We thought it would be much smaller this
late, before the end of the program, but it has held up and exceeded
the anticipated load under both Public Law 16 for the disabled, and:
under Public Law 346.
So, that has contributed in a small measure to the high load.
Under the Korean GI bill, and the Korean disabled bill, these men
have continued to accrue the right to benefits, from the beginning of
the Korean situation up until February of this year, and for those
who were in service prior to February 1, they can continue to accrue
those benefits up until as much as 3 years.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Do you mean they may have accrued 4 years of
benefits?
Mr. GOULDE. No, sir; the maximum is 3 years under this bill, but
a man who went in on January 15 of this year, for the next 3 years,
or until January 15, 1958, can continue to accrue benefits.
Mr. PHILLIPS. How can he accrue benefits since the Korean War is
over?
Mr. GoULDE. By virtue of Public Law 7. In other words, the
President issued his proclamation ending the Korean situation for
benefits as of January 31, but the Congress in order to fulfill a com-
mitment, let us say, to a man who had gone into the service prior to
that day with the understanding that he would receive benefits, passed
Public Law 7, which said if he went in the service prior to February 1,
he could continue to accrue benefits until lie got out, or until his
first separation from service.
In fact, if he went in on February 2 or February 5, or February 10,
or thereafter, he cannot accrue anything.
So, with the better than 3.5 million veterans of the Korean war
since July 1950, and with the numbers which we have had to date,
plus the younger age level of these boys, and the desire for a higher
education even more so at the collegiate level than in the World War
II group, these numbers have continued to surge, and they continue to
surge, and I think, Mr. Shytle, we exceeded 600,000 last month.
Mr. THOMAS. Gentlemen, you say the month of June is the slowest
month, or the month of the smallest amount of expenditure?
Mr. SITYTLE. When you calculate a fiscal year's operation the
month of June average training load is a low figure, because they drop
out in the latter part of May.
Mr. THOMAS. Again reading from page 5 of your justifications, you
show $688,280,000 for the first 10 months, which is an average of
$68.8 million a month. For the 2 remaining months of May and
June you have in round figures $122 million left. The first 10 months
cost $68.8 million a month. For the months of May and June that
would give you $137 million, You have $122 million on hand, so you
will need $15 million at the most.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
12
Mr. SHYTLE. Mr. Chairman, when we compute this average train-
ing load for June the in-training is a low figure. The June in-training
expenditures for those people in training at the end of June do not
reflect in our figures until July, because they have to be in training
during the month, and then they have to be reported.
Mr. THOMAS. But it is still the lightest month of expenditures.
Mr. SHYTLE. It is the light month of veterans in training.
Mr. THOMAS. That is what I am talking about.
Mr. SHYTLE. Expenditures for the month of June are calculated on
the veterans in training at the end of May because certificates have to
come in. The veterans estimate in training at the end of May is
548,000. We estimate the training load will drop from the end of
April, 603,000, to the end of May, 548,000. In June we expend money
for 548,000. In July we expend money for 383,000, the number on
the rolls at the end of June.
Mr. THOMAS. Phrasing it a little bit differently, the expenditures
you actually obligate for the month of June are your lightest figures.
Your heavy obligation is for the month of May?
Mr. SHYTLE. No, sir. Our lighter figures are in July and August,
Sir.
Mr. THOMAS. Your heavy payment is for the month of May, which
actually takes place in June. Your light payment is the month of July.
Mr. SHYTLE. Phrased that way I understand you, sir.
Mr. THOMAS. That takes care of your obligation for June.
Mr. KELSEY. So you need the higher figure in June.
Mr. SHYTLE. That is right, sir.
Mr. THOMAS. That is right.
Mr. SHYTLE. I understand.
Mr. THOMAS. Your light figure is the first month of your now fiscal
year?
Mr. SHYTLE. That is right, sir.
Mr. KELSEY. SO the greater figure is needed for June. Going
back over the figures you used a minute ago, Mr. Chairman, as
indicated in the paragraph on page 5, the total of $566 million ex-
penditure is in the first 10 months.
Mr. THOMAS. $688 million.
Mr. KELSEY. That was available, Mr. Chairman. Of that, $566
million was expended.
Mr. THOMAS. That is right.
Mr. KELSEY. Which would give an average per month for 10
months of a little over $56 million. But the experience of the later
months is higher. MMarch and April, for example, are about $75
million per month. Since we only have $121 million left, it means
we need the difference.
Mr. THOMAS. I gave you the break on that, because I was figuring
it at $68.8 million. Now you have it down to $55 million.
Mr. KELSEY. If we used such a figure as that we would still have
to have more.
Mr. THOMAS. Let us see your rate of expenditures by months.
Let us put those in the record. Read them off, beginning with the
first month of fiscal year 1955.
Mr: SxYTLE. We are talking about $550 million?
Mr. THOMAS. No.
Mr. KELSEY. Readjustment benefits on the educational training.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
13
Mr. THOMAS.. Everything except your loan guaranty.
Mr. SITYTLE. Do you want the loan guaranty amount pulled out of
here?
Mr. THOMAS. That is right. The educational benefits only. Mr.
Kelsey says it is just about $55 million a month for the first 10 months.
Mr. KELSEY. On the average; yes, Sir.
Mr. PHILLIPS. $56.6 million.
Mr. KELSEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SITYTLE. I can get it in just a second.
Mr. THOMAS. Take your time.
Mr. PHILLIPS. How much did you ask for next year, as an average
amount per month? You did not ask for that much for next year;
did you?
Mr. KELSEY. I think you are right, Mr. Phillips.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Phillips, answering your specific question, as to
our estimate for next year
Mr. KELSEY. You are talking about load, Mr. Phillips?
Mr. BAKER. The average cost is $1,252. That is what we had in
the estimate there. I think the Administrator indicated in his state-
ment he thought that might be low.
-1.4r. PHILLIPS. How much does that make per month in money?
My point is, Mr. Chairman, I think they are either asking for much
more as a percentage now than they testified they were going to, or
else they are coming out short in the next year and will be up here
again before we get out, for another supplemental.
Mr. KELSEY. Mr. Phillips, I think that is a possibility, certainly.
In the Administrator's general statement, there were some figures
included to show that the average number of veterans in training in
the 1956 fiscal year would be a certain number. I do not have that
number in my mind right now, but he indicated at the same time
that our recent experience on this upsurge would justify a consider-
ably higher figure in 1956 than was in the budget.
Mr. PHILLIPS. My point is that Congress is going home. We will
not see you again until January. If your testimony is correct for the
last month of 1955 then your testimony for the first 6 months of 1956
is low, and you are not going to have enough money. You must be
either high here or low there.
Mr. KELSEY. We are low there, sir.
Mr. SHYTLE. The July expenditures for V. R. and E. ran $37.8
million.
Mr. THOMAS. $37.8 million for July?
Mr. SHYTLE. Yes, sir; $37.8 million. The cumulative expenditure
was $77 million.
Mr. THOMAS. The first one was $37.8 million. The next one was
$40 million. What was the next?
Mr. PHILLIPS. $38 million.
Mr. THOMAS. $38 million. Go ahead.
Mr. SITYTLE..The next was $144 million, from $107 million.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
14
Mr. THOMAS. $37 million.
Mr. SHYTLE. The next was from $144 million to $212 million.
Mr. PHILLIPS. $68 million. How did you make a jump like that?
Mr. SHYTLE. This is that college enrollment coming in.
Mr. THOMAS. What is that figure, $68 million?
Mr. SITYTLE. In December it jumped to $279.5 million from that
figure of $212 million.
Mr. THOMAS. $67.5 million. What is the next one?
Mr. SHYTLE. January was $342 million from the $279 million.
Mr. BAKER. $62.5 million.
Mr. SITYTLE. February was $402 million.
Mr. BAKER,. $60 million.
Mr. PHILLIPS. An even $60 million.
Mr. SHYTLE. March was $470 million.
Mr. PHILLIPS. $68 million.
Mr. SHYTLE. April was $539 million.
Mr. PHILLIPS. $69 million.
Mr. SHYTLE. That is the way it is coming up.
Mr. THOMAS. Is that your last figure?
Mr. SHYTLE. April is actually the last figure I have, sir.
Mr. THOMAS. Ten months?
Mr. SITYTLE. That is right, sir. It is a total of $540 million.
Mr. THOMAS. The figure of $121 million left over is $20 million not
enough.
Mr. SHYTLE. We are talking about education and training.
Mr. THOMAS. That is right.
Mr. SHYTLE. The $121 million, the way we got it, was to take the
total expenditures for the appropriation and compare it with avail-
ability, which included loan guaranty.
Mr. OSTERTAG. That averages about $54 million for 10 months; is
that correct?
Mr. SHYTLE. Yes, sir; except that when you average this to date it
is obvious by looking at your training load, the way it has gone up,
you cannot take an average and do it.
Mr. THOMAS. That figures a total of $547.8 million, in round
figures.. You have $121 million left for May and June.
Mr. OSTERTAG. Is it not a fact that the load is going to be higher
this next year than in fiscal 1955?
Mr. SITYTLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. OSTERTAG. That is a foregone conclusion; is that correct?
Mr. SHYTLE. We are now estimating a large increase in training
load average next year over the year we are in now; yes, sir.
Mr. THOMAS. Well, gentlemen, you have $121 million on hand,
and you cannot possibly use more than $15.6 million.
Mr. BAKER. That $121 million also covers the amount on hand for
loan guaranty.
Mr. SHYTLE. Yes, sir. And, the expenditure figures I gave you did
not include loan. guaranty. You told me to exclude those.
Mr. THOMAS. Yes.
Mr. SITYTLE. When you take an average rate for that
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
15
Mr. THOMAS. I am talking about your education and training pro-
gram. The top figure would be $15.6 million, plus $4 million. I am
not sure how accurate you are on that. Instead of being $28 million
at most it is $19.6 million.
Mr. SHYTLE. No, sir, Mr. 'T'homas. The average expenditure that
you got there by the figures I gave you was for education and training.
It did not include loan guaranty. So when you take that average
expenditure and apply it against the $121 million you are mixing
apples and oranges in that case.
Mr. THOMAS. How much of the $121 million are you going to use
for loan guaranty? It is less than $2 million, or else your justification
is wrong.
Mr. SIIYTLE. It runs $3,387,000 a month.
Mr. THOMAS. As I remember it is was less than $2 million. Let
us read your own justifications here.
Appropriate consideration has been given to all other costs of education and
training * * * such funds have been applied to cover the increased cost of $5.9
million anticipated for loan guaranty program, resulting in a net increase of
$4 million.
Mr. KELSEY. That is right.
Mr. THOMAS. So you are going to take $5.9 million minus $4 million,
which is $2 million, from your $121 million. We are going to give
you $4 million fresh money. You are using $2 million educational
program money for loan guaranty.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, of the $28 million we are asking for, $4
million would be used to pay the additional cost.
Mr. THOMAS. That is right.
Mr. BAKER. We would use $24 million for the educational part of it.
Mr. THOMAS. I am talking about the remaining 2 months of this
fiscal year, when you are going to use less than $2 million of your
education money. You are going to use $6 million additional money.
Mr. BAKER. That is right. For the loan guaranty program.
Mr. THOMAS. $4 million will be appropriated funds and $2 million
will be funds heretofore appropriated for education.
Mr. BAKER. That is right.
Mr. THOMAS. So at best you cannot use over $19.6 million, any way
you look at it.
Mr. SHYTLE. Total, sir?
Mr. THOMAS. Yes.
Mr. SHYTLE. Mr. Thomas, there is still something wrong with that
calculation of yours, because we come up with $28 million, and we felt
at the time we did it we were being very, very careful on it.
Mr. THOMAS. We are just taking your own figures month by month.
Mr. SHYTLE. There is something wrong with your approach, Mr.
Thomas. I do not know what it is, but I know I cannot get $19.6
million if we take it and apply it the way it is supposed to be applied.
You can take the current expenditure rates for the whole readjustment
benefit program through April, take it from availability, and you have
$121 million left.
Mr. THOMAS. We are staying with education. The highest month
here so far has been $69 million for education. You have had some
months as low as $40 million or $38 million or $37 million.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
16
Mr. OSTERTAG. Is the question one involving the balance of this
fiscal year alone?
Mr. THOMAS. That is it; primarily the month of June.
Mr. OSTERTAG. The month of June, primarily. It ought not to
be difficult for the Veterans' Administration to estimate on the basis
of records of obligations what the needs for the balance of this fiscal
year ought to be.
Mr. KELSEY. Mr. Congressman, the way I see it we have been talk-
ing about figures for 10 months. Some of these individual months
that Mr. Shytle just gave show very clearly that some of those months
were very low, and that the more recent months are very high, the
highest of all. So that in May and June particularly, about which
we have been talking, we have the highest figures per month. We
have to forget about the average for the first 10 months and use the
realistic figures that we have before us now for the last month.
Mr. OSTERTAG. You have a balance of $121 million; is that right?
Mr. KELSEY. Yes, sir; in the overall for those 2 programs we need
$75 million a month for the last 2 months. Since we have $121 million
available and we need about $150 million there is a net shortage of
$28 million.
Mr. THOMAS. Your last 2 months have been running $68 million
and $69 million.
Mr. KELSEY. That is on the education alone. That does not
include loan guarantee.
Mr. THOMAS. That is right. I am talking about education alone.
Mr. KELSEY. Yes, sir; but, Mr. Chairman, if you use that figure,
to round it off--
Mr. THOMAS. How do you arrive at your figure of really $6 million
rather than $4 million? You are asking only $4 million of fresh funds
here on your loan guaranty program. How do you arrive at that
figure?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, on page 3 there are a number of those
activities that show balances. Those excesses have been applied to
the $5.9 million needed for loan guaranty.
Mr. THOMAS. How do you arrive at $5.9 million? It is all based
on the number of foreclosures, plus a few odds and ends?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. It is based on the increased activity during the
first calendar quarter of 1955, sir.
Mr. THOMAS. Does that mean that economic conditions are worsen-
ing in this second quarter, or are going to be worse than they were in
the first quarter?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. I do not believe that that conclusion can be
drawn from it, Mr. Chairman. Rather, it reflects the increased ac-
tivity both in respect to the number of loans and in the increased loan
amounts.
Mr. THOMAS. What you are saying is that out of so many thousand
loans, per thousand there are going to be so many foreclosures, regard-
less of economics?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Yes, Sir.
Mr. THOMAS. Divorces, deaths, movings out of the community?
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R0001001.30001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
17
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Yes, sir. Our percentage of defaults to out-
standing loans is not increasing.
Mr.HOMAS. How does this figure for the last quarter of this year
compare with your known figure for the first quarter c'f calendar year
1955?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. It is Up Some, Sir.
Mr. THOMAS. What is up?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. The number of claims.
Mr. THOMAS. For the last quarter of fiscal 1955 it is up. What are
you basing it on?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. I have the figures on the number of claims which
we paid.
Mr. THOMAS. For which quarter?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. I have them here for the first quarter of 1955.
Mr. THOMAS. Give us the foreclosures or claims for the three
quarters for fiscal year 1955.
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. These are claims paid, sir, on home loans.
These are just the home-loan cases. I can give you the others if you
want them, but these are the most significant, of course.
Mr. THOMAS. What do you mean by claims paid?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Those are claims under the guaranty where we
have paid the lender the amount of the guaranty.
Mr. THOMAS. In other words, you have picked up the paper.
Does that include foreclosures, voluntary assignments, or what?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. They may, but not necessarily, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. THOMAS. In other words, that is the big item, when you pick
up that guaranty?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Yes, Sir.
Mr. THOMAS. What was it for the first quarter of 1955?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Seven hundred and twenty-eight in the first
quarter of 1955.
Mr. THOMAS. Is that units or dollars?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Seven hundred and twenty-eight claims in
numbers.
Mr. THOMAS. Seven hundred and twenty-eight claims?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. THOMAS. What is the second quarter?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Eight hundred and thirty-five.
Mr. THOMAS. Eight hundred and thirty-five. What is the third
quarter?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Nine hundred and forty.
Mr. THOMAS. It is picking up about 12 percent. What do you
anticipate for this final quarter?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Do you have that, Mr. Sliytle?
Mr. SHYTLE. I do not have it broken down by quarter; no, sir.
Mr. THOMAS. Break down your 728, 835, and 940 claims for the
first to third quarters, dollarwise.
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. I do not have that figure with me, Mr. Chairman.
I can tell you.what our average claim runs. Our average claim on
home loans ran $3,248.
Mr. THOMAS. The average was $3,248?
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
18
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. That was for the month of January. That is.
just the average for the 1 month. Overall our average claim figure
is--
Mr. THOMAS. Those houses are 10 and 12 years old. They had a
pretty good equity in them, did they not?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Not necessarily, sir. Many of these units will
be claims paid on houses bought within the last year or two.
Mr. THOMA[ . So the average figure does not mean much?
Mr. BROWNbTEIN. Bear in mind, sir, that is not the loan amount.
That is the amount of our guaranty. The loan amount is at least
double that in most cases.
Mr. THOMAS. FHA is in there with you, then?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. On relatively few now, Mr. Thomas.
Mr. THOMAS. If that is half of the loan amount, that means they
had a pretty good equity.
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. No, sir. You see, the lender will still have
coming to it the balance due on the debt. For example, we may have
guaranteed a loan for 50 percent, the loan being $6,000. We paid
the lender $3,000. He still has $3,000 coming to him. He gets it
out of the sales proceeds of the property.
Mr. THOMAS. Then you are going to have to get your equity out?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. We will have to take over the property and try
to salvage a part of our $3,000 out of that; yes, sir.
Mr. THOMAS. Percentagewise these figures of 728 and 835 and 940
claims for the first, second, and third quarters of fiscal year 1955
represent what percent of your total?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. We have outstanding home loans of something
over 3 million at the moment. Our outstanding home loans at the
present time are a little over 3,041,000.
Mr. THOMAS. 3,041,000. That is homes or houses?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Yes, Sir.
Mr. THOMAS. That is a pretty small percentage, is it not?
Mr. BROWNSTEIN. It is, sir.
Mr. THOMAS. Thank you all very much, gentlemen.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 ApproverFor Release 2002/05/09 : CIDP86B00269R000100130001-5
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT MATTERS
GEORGE W. ANDREWS, Alabama, Chairman
GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas IVOR D. FENTON, Pennsylvania
HARRY R. SHEPPARD, California FREDERIC R. COUDERT, Jr., New
J. VAUGHAN GARY, Virginia York
LOUIS C. RABAUT, Michigan EARL WILSON, Indiana
JOHN F. SHELLEY, California BENJAMIN F. JAMES, Pennsylvania
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1955.
COMMISSION ON ORGANIZATION OF THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT
WITNESSES
JOHN B. HOLLISTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMISSION ON
ORGANIZATION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERN-
MENT
FRANCIS P. BRASSOR, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Mr. ANDREWS. We have with us this afternoon representatives
from the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of
the Government.
Mr. Hollister, do you have a general statement?
Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, sir; I have.
Mr. ANDREws. Before you proceed, we will insert a copy of House
Document 147.
(The matter above-referred to is as follows:)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington 25, D. C., April .21, 1965.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House.
SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith for your consideration a proposed
supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year 1955, in the amount of $263,475,
for the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government,
INDEPENDENT OFFICES
COMMISSION ON ORGANIZATION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT
"SALARIES AND EXPENSES
"For an additional amount for `Salaries and expenses', $263,475, to remain
available until expended."
The act establishing the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch
of the Government terminates the Commission on May 31, 1955. The Commis-
sion has now asked the Congress to extend its life for the month of June and to
provide a 90-day period for agency liquidation and editing and printing certain
final reports. To date, $2,585,059 has been appropriated to finance the work of
the Commission.
The proposed supplemental appropriation is necessary to cover unanticipated
additional work and printing expense in connection with task-force studies, the
operation of the Commission for an additional month, and obligations which would
be incurred during the 90-day liquidation period.
This being an estimate for the legislative branch, it is required by law to be
transmitted to the Congress without revision.
Respectfully yours,
ROWLAND HUGHES,
Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/QfJ09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
Mr. ANDREWS. Now, Mr. Hollister, we will be glad to hear from
you.
GENERAL STATEMENT
Mr. HOLLISTER. This is a request for $263,475 to complete the work
of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the
Government.
The bill extending the life of the Commission to June 30, 1955, and
providing for a 90-day liquidation period thereafter, S. 1763, passed
the Senate on April 26 and the House on May 16.
On page 2 of our justifications, we list the five items for which these
additional funds are needed-and on the pages which follow we present
the detailed justifications.
PAPERWORK MANAGEMENT
Very briefly, we need $25,000 for the task force study on "Paperwork
management." No funds were ever requested or received, in previous
appropriations, for this study. We absorbed the $20,000 required
for part I of the study. That is the part covering the reduction of
paper work in the executive branch. When that report was released,
the task force members estimated that there would be an initial
annual saving of $250 million if the recommendations are implemented.
This potential saving convinced the Commission that the initiation
of part II should be accelerated. That is the part covering paperwork
required of private business by the Federal Government. This
second phase of the study will cost us $25,000. Although we absorbed
the $20,000 required for part I, we are not able to absorb the cost of
part II.
Secondly, we need $58,000 to complete our study on the principles,
the methods and the organization structures for Federal procurement.
The progress reports indicated the possibility of such vast savings in
this area that a larger staff than originally contemplated was assembled
and they are continuing their work beyond the original date scheduled
for completion.
If the recommendations being developed are put into effect, the cost
of this procurement study will be only a small fraction of 1 percent of
the total savings to the Government. As a result of these develop-
ments, this procurement study will cost us $209,000 rather than the
$151,000 originally estimated.
The third item is printing reports. Our task forces have assembled
a great volume of very informative material regarding a number of
expensive Government programs.
The Commissioners are of the opinion that the Members of Con-
gress, executive officials, anrd the general public should have access, to
this very valuable digest of information regarding our government and
therefore have decided, as a matter of policy, that all reports of the
task forces or study groups as well as all Commission reports, should
be printed and filed with the Congress.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA- 1DP86B00269R000100130001-5
$60,000 was appropriated for the printing of reports. We need a
total of $142,650 or an additional $82,650.
We need $60,000 to cover the salaries of the Commissioners, their
assistants and secretaries, and the staff personnel, and for other
obligations, except printing, during the month of June.
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EDITORIAL AND LIQUIDATING STAFFS DURING
JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER
The reports acted upon in June will have to be edited and prepared
for the printer during the latter part of June and the month of July.
The reviewing of proof, the final printing, and the publication of
these reports should be completed by the end of August. Also during
the months of August and September, we will have to take care of the
numerous details involved in a liquidation such as this. Our needs
for these 3 months are $37,825.
These five items total the $263,475 requested in this submission.
Mr. ANDREWS. How much appropriation did you receive for this
fiscal year?
Mr. HOLLISTER. It was not by years. In the original appropriation
we got $500,000. That was a year and a half ago, or more. I think
everybody understood that was merely to start the Commission under-
way. In the first supplemental appropriation, we received $1,431,909;
in the second supplemental, we received $653,150.
Mr. ANDREWS. Making a total of?
Mr. HOLLISTER. Making a total of $2,585 059.
Mr. ANDREWS. Of that amount. how much do you have left?
Mr. HOLLISTER. We had left only $63,984.
Mr. ANDREWS. Under the original law, the Commission was to
expire on May 31, 1955?
Mr. IOLLISTER. That is correct.
Mr. ANDREWS. And you are requesting an additional appropria-
tion of $263,475?
Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. ANDREws. To carry you through 3 additional months?
Mr. HOLLISTER. To carry us through 1 month for the full Com-
mission, and 3 additional months for the liquidating period-a period
when we will be completing the editing, printing, and publishing of
our reports and liquidating the Commission.
Mr. ANDREWS. If this amount is appropriated, it will give you a
total of $2,848,534?
Mr. HOLLISTER. Correct.
Mr. ANDREWS. In your opinion, will this be enough for you to
complete the work of the Commission?
Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, Sir.
Mr. ANDREWS. And wind up the agency?
Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. ANDREWS. And publish your report?
Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, Sir.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 20021Ji/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
TASK FORCE ON PAPERWO:RK MANAGEMENT
Mr. ANDREWS. I notice of the $263,475 you request, you want
$25,000 for a task force on paperwork management.
Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. ANDREWS. You state that the estimated savings as a result of
that work will be approximately $250 million?
Mr. HOLLISTER. The work of this task force was divided into two
parts. The first part involved the saving that the Government might
accomplish in the event they put into effect what we call birth control
of paperwork. A great deal of paper work which was carried on
never should have been started.
The second part is a study of paperwork required of private business
by the Federal Government. This task force worked through industry
committees and various governmental departments. This already,
by common consent, has eliminated a great many reports that were
formerly made. The task force estimated a saving which industry
backs up, of about $10 million both by industry and by the
Government itself.
Mr. ANDREWS. How many reports have been issued by the Com-
mission?
Mr. HOLLISTER. The Commission has published nine reports. There
will be 11 more.
Mr. ANDREWS. You will have a total of 20?
Mr. HOLLISTER. A total of 20. We may consolidate 1 or 2 before
we get to the end; but that is roughly the number of major reports.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TASK FORCE ON PROCUREMENT
Mr. ANDREWS. Your second request is for $58,000 for additional
requirements for the task force on procurement.
Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, Sir.
Mr. ANDREWS. What is the situation with reference to that task
force?
Mr. HOLLISTER. The work of that task force turned out to be much
more arduous and required a bigger staff than we originally contem-
plated. In estimating for these different studies, it is not always
easy to allocate the exact amount to a particular study and we have
occasionally switched certain sums from one particular study to
another when we found it was going to cost more than the other.
And procurement was one which we underestimated in the amount that
was necessary. It is not quite finished.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRINTING OF REPORTS
Mr. ANDREWS. You want for additional requirements for the print-
ing of reports an estimated $82,650.
Mr. HOLLISTER. The reason for that is t'.iis: Very early in our work
the Commission decided, inasmuch as our Commission reports were
based on the task force reports and referred to them very often, it
was only proper that we file with Congress the complete task force
reports. Some of those are rather large. Some of them :run 600, 700,
and 800 pages. In making our Commission reports, we have condensed
them to a more readable size. Nevertheless it seemed to our Commis-
sioners that the Congress should have access to all task force reports in
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
23
printed form for the future reference and use. This caused a higher
printing bill than we ever anticipated.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENDING LIFE OF COMMISSION FOR 1 MONTH
Mr. ANDREWS. Your next request is for requirements for extending
the life of the Commission for 1 month, $60,000.
Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, sir. I can give you a breakdown: Office of
the Commissioner is $21,000; staff official personnel, $22,000; other
obligations, $12,000. And we will have to call some of the task force
people back for consultation. We estimate that at $5,000. That gives
a total of $60,000 for the month of June.
Mr. ANDREWS. Is that what it has cost in the past for operating
the Commission?
Mr. HOLLISTER. That is down considerable from previous monthly
costs.
Mr. ANDREWS. How many employees do you have and will you
have?
Mr. BRASSOR. The average number of employees for the fiscal year
1955 is 220.
Mr. ANDREWS. We will put the table on page 7 in the record
showing the funds needed to June.
(The matter above referred to is as follows:)
(a) Offices of the Commissioners-----------------------------------$21, 000
(b) Staff officials and personnel-. ---------------------------------- 22, 000
(c) Other obligations (except printing) -------------------------12, 000
(d) Cost of certain personnel from task forces called back on a consulting
or "when needed" basis------------------------------------- 5,000
Total cost for June-------------------------------------- 60,000
REQUIREMENTS FOR EDITORIAL AND LIQUIDATING STAFFS DURING
JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER
Mr. ANDREWS. The next item is for $37,825 for requirements for
editorial and liquidating staffs during July, August, and September.
We will insert the table on page 8 which shows a breakdown of this
amount.
(The matter above referred to is as follows:)
Office of the Chairman (1 part time and 3 full time) ------------------ $7, 245
Office of Executive Director (1 part time and 1 full time) -------------- 2, 280
Office of Executive Secretary (4 persons) ---------------------------- 7, 520
Office Services Section (6 persons) ---------------------------------- 6, 570
Research staff (2 persons) ----------------------------------------- 4, 610
Editorial staff (2 part time and 2 full time) -------------------------- 9, 600
Total----------------------------------------------------- 37,825
Mr. HOLLISTER. That is for a 3 months' period.
Mr. ANDREws. Now of the amount requested of $263,475, $137,325
will be for personal services?
Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, Sir.
Mr. ANDREWS. $82,650 for printing, and all other obligations,
$43,500?
Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, Sir.
Mr. ANDREws. Do you anticipate you will have any unexpended
balance when you wind up your job?
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
24
Mr. HOLLISTER. Mr. Chairman, I would hate to conduct any opera-
tion and not hope to come out a little ahead, rather than be left with
nothing. But we have cut it as fine as we feel is safe.
Mr. ANDREWS. I think it would be well to put this entire statement
in the record.
(The matter above referred to is as follows:)
COMMISSION ON ORGANIZATION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ESTIMATES AND JUSTIFICATIONS
This is a supplemental request in the au;iouht of $263,475. Our appropriations,
in the amount of $2,585,059 are available for the life of the Commission.
The justifications for this request are presented below.
1. Requirements for a Task Force on Paperwork Management---_---_ $25, 000
2. Additional requirements for the Task Force on Procurement-_------ 58, 000
3. Additional requirements for the printing of reports---------------- 82, 650
4. Requirements for extending the life of the Commission for 1 month_ 60, 000
5. Requirements for editorial and liquidating staffs during July, August,
and September ----------------------------------------------37,825
Total additional requirements--.---.-------------------------- 263, 475
Breakdown of objects of expenditures
01
Personal services------------------------------------------.-
$137,325
06
Printing---------------------------------------------------
82,650
All other obligations r------------------ -------------------------
43, 500
Total---------------------------------------------------
263, 475
1$12,000 for Juno; $12,000 for July; $10,500 for August; $9,000 for September.
1. Requirements for the Task Force on Paperwork Management
No funds were requested or received, in previous appropriations, for this study.
The original concept was that the study would be confined to the development of
recommendations aimed at (1) the reduction of paperwork in the executive branch
of the Government, and (2) the saving of space and filing equipment now used for
records which might be disposed or of records which can be sent to inexpensive
record centers.
The Commission absorbed the cost of this part of the study ($20,000).
Last February (February 21, 1955) the Commission completed and released
this report to the Congress. It was entitled "Paperwork Management-Part I,
in the United States Government." In this report the Commission recommended
programs and methods that would apply "birthcontrol" to paperwork at its source,
with an initial annual saving estimated at $250 million.
Realizing that this is only one part of the paperwork problem of the Federal
Government and being spurred by the savings potentials of the first phase of the
study, the Commission immediately accelerated its work on part II of the study.
This is a study of paperwork required of private business by the Federal Govern-
ment. It deals (1) with paperwork which private citizens and American business
are required to perform in answering the questionnaires, and in filling the requests
of Federal agencies for various data, and (2) the cost to the Government of
unnecessary items in questionnaires. Som.c.?5 committees were set up in various
commercial groups to study these matters. They have been brought into contact
with the Federal agencies concerned, and simplifications already accepted by the
Federal agencies are expected to save $10 million annually to the Government and
a like amount to industry. This successful experiment can be extended.
To date, we have spent nearly $15,000 on this second portion of the study. It
will take about $10,000 more to complete the work in hand. Although we
absorbed the $20,000 which the first part of this study cost, we need supplemental
funds to cover the costs of part II of the study. Therefore, the total amount
requested in this submission for paperwork management is $25,000.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
25
2. Additional requirements for the Task Force on Procurement
The cost of the Task Force Study on Procurement was originally estimated at
$151,000. This study covers the principles, the methods, and the organizational
structures for Federal procurement in the Department of Defense, the Atomic
Energy Commission, and the General Services Administration.
The billions spent for procurement affect our national economy in many ways.
Also, the progress reports indicated that the possible improvements through the
study could result in savings of hundreds of millions of dollars; therefore, a larger
staff than originally contemplated was assembled, and they continued their
investigations beyond the date originally scheduled for completion. The progress
then being made, and the improvements and savings being pursued, justified
these steps. If the recommendations being developed in this study are put into
effect, the cost of the study will be a small fraction of 1 percent of the savings to
the Government.
As a result of the above developments, the Procurement Task Force study will
cost us $209,000 rather than the $151,000 originally estimated. Therefore, the
amount included in this submission for the procurement study is $58,000.
3. Additional requirements for the printing of reports
In past appropriations, $60,000 was made available for printing the final reports
of the Commission to the Congress.
Since then the Commission has decided, as a matter of policy, that all reports of
the task forces or study groups, as well as all Commission reports to the Congress,
should be printed.
The cost of printing the reports of the first Hoover Commission was $81,000.
When we reduced our estimates by $21,000 below the actual cost to the previous
Commission, we were of the opinion that we would have fewer reports and since
they covered functions or programs of Government, that they would be less
voluminous.
We now find that our task forces have assembled a great volume of very infor-
mative analyses and statistics regarding a great number of expensive Government
programs. -
This material was assembled by consultants and experts who have outstanding
capabilities in these various fields of Government work.
It, therefore, seemed to the Commissioners that the Members of Congress, the
executive officials, the press, and the general public should have access to this very
valuable digest of information regarding our Government.
Secondly, it seemed to our Commissioners that, since outstanding experts in
these fields of work made these surveys and gave us the benefit of their experience
and allowed us to capitalize upon their combined knowledge, their findings and
recommendations to the Commission should be made available to the congressional
committees and the public officials who will have to decide upon the implementa-
tion of our recommendations. In other words, if we considered them as `experts"
to conduct these studies for us, then whether we agree with their findings or recom-
mendations or not, we think that the Congress is entitled to have their views.
By prorating the cost of the reports already printed, to the reports yet to be
printed, we find that the total printing costs will be $142,650. We now have
$60,000. Therefore, our additional need to print all reports is $82,650.
4. Additional requirement for extending the life of the Commission for I month
As is usually the case in a gigantic study such as this, new leads continuously
are developed. They, in turn, require that new areas be explored. In a number
of task force studies these new leads and areas pointed to such substantial improve-
ments and possible savings that good judgment dictated the need to extend the
scheduled dates for the completion of the task force reports. The extensions
increased the cost of these particular studies. As a result, savings from other
task forces which completed their assignments at a smaller cost than originally
contemplated were totally absorbed.
This late filing of staff papers and task force reports by two task forces (intelli-
gence activities and depot utilization) which were started very late and by five
which had their filing dates extended, is creating an impossible concentration of
task force reports for Commission action in May. [(1) Procurement, (2) business
organization of Department of Defense, (3) real property,- (4) budget and account-
ing, and (5) water resources and power.]
Therefore, the Congress has been asked to extend the life of the Commission
for the month of June and to provide a 90-day period for liquidation, and for
editing and printing the final reports.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
26.
Practically all of the task forces will be liquidated by the first of June. There-
fore, the funds needed in June are for:
(a)
Offices of the Commissioners -----------------------------------
$21, 000
(b)
Staff officials and personnel------------------------------------
22,000
(c)
Other obligations (except printing) ------------------------------
12, 000
(d)
Cost of certain personnel from task forces called back on a con-
sulting or "when needed" basis______________________________
5,000
Total cost for June--------------------------------------
60, 000
5. Requirements for the editorial and liquidating staffs during July, August, and
September
The reports acted on during June would be rewritten, edited, and prepared
for the printer in June and July. The reviewing of proof, the final printing and
the publication of these reports will be completed by the end of August.
Also during August and by the end of September, the numerous details involved
in the liquidation of an agency such as this would be completed.
The following tabulation gives the details on these needs:
Office of the Chairman (1 part time and. 3 full time)__________________ $7, 245
Office of Executive Director (1 part time and 1 full time)______________ 2, 280
Office of Executive Secretary (4 persons) ---------------------------- 7, 520
Office Services Section (6 persons) ---------------------------------- 6, 570'
Research staff (2 persons) ---------------------------------------- 4,610
Editorial staff (2 part time and 2 full time)__________________________ 9, 600
Total------------------------------------------------------ 37,825
Estimated expenditures:
April' -------------------$130,000
---------------------------------
May'-----?------------------------------------------------- 105,310
June'--------------------------------- 60,000
July, August, and September editorial and liquidating staffs ------ 37, 825
Other obligations for July, August, and September except printing- 44, 870
Printing reports ($18,990 available on Apr. 1 and 82,650 requested
herein) -------------------------------------------------- 101,640
Total estimated expenditures ------------------------------ 479, 645
Funds available on Apr. 1, 1955 ------------------------------------ $216, 170
Amount requested in this budget ----------------------------------- 263, 475
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADEQUATE PARCEL POST RATES
Mr. GARY. Mr. Hollister, I notice in one of your reports to Congress
dated May, 1955, under recommendation No. 11, you recommend
that the Postmaster General shall, if the current rates do not cover all
costs of the parcel post service, including indirect costs, seek a further
increase of rates.
Mr. HOLLISTER. That was with respect to parcel post.
Mr. GARY. With respect to parcel post. In connection with that
recommendation, apparently your Commission was not familiar with
what has been done in this connection and, in order to keep the record.
straight, I would like to call your attention to the fact that when the
parcel post law was first adopted, in the twenties, there was included
a section which reads:
The classification of articles mailable, as well as the weight limit, the rates of
postage, zone or zones, and other conditions of mialability under sections 240, 293,
and 294 of this title if the Postmaster General shall find on experience that they or
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : C \-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
any of them are such as to prevent the shipment of articles desirable, or to per-
manently render the cost of the service greater than the receipts of the revenue
therefrom, he is directed-
And I call your attention to the word "directed." It does not say
he is authorized, but it says he is directed.
* * * subject to the consent of the Interstate Commerce Commission after
investigation, to re-form from time to time such classifications, weight limit,
rates, zone or zones or conditions, or either, in order to promote the service to
the public or to insure the receipt of revenue from such service adequate to
pay the cost thereof.
I have had the privilege of serving for several years as chairman
of the Committee on Treasury and Post Office and we tried to get
the Postmaster General to carry out the provisions of that section
for a long time, but we failed to do so. The Postmaster General said
he thought Congress ought to fix the rates. We told him that was
not his prerogative to say- that he had been directed to do this. But
in 1950, in response to the recommendation of our committee, the
Congress wrote into the Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1951 a
general provision which is permanent law, which provides that:
Hereafter none of the funds appropriated to the Post Office Department from
the general fund of the Treasury shall be withdrawn from the Treasury until the
Postmaster General shall certify in writing that he has requested the consent of
the Interstate Commerce Commission to the establishment of such rate increases
or other reformations (in addition to any specific increases or other reformations
heretofore or hereafter authorized or prescribed by law) pursuant to the provisions
of section 207 of the act of February 28, 1925, as amended, as may be necessary
to insure the receipt of revenue from fourth-class mail service sufficient to pay
the cost of such service: Provided, That the foregoing shall not be construed to
require any increase in the postage rate, established by the act of April 15, 1937,
for publications or records furnished to a blind person.
By that section the Congress said to the Postmaster General that
he could not receive any funds from the Treasury until he had first
applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission for sufficient rates
to make the parcel post self-sustaining. And, since that time, the
Postmaster General has on two occasions applied for increases in the
rates referred to in these sections and, in each instance, has secured
approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission so that today, pre-
sumably, the parcel post is paying its way. If it is not, then it is the
duty of the Postmaster General under the law to apply for an increase
in rates, and, unless he does, he cannot draw any money from the
Treasury of the United States for the operation of his Department.
Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, sir. We were fully aware of that. The
question was raised and I think the task force referred to it, but cer-
tainly it was raised in the Commission. Of course the question of
actual cost is always a difficult problem as to what costs are thrown
into certain services; how much overhead is applied to this class of
service, that class of service, and so forth.
I do not know what the Postmaster General expects to do. Any-
way, the Commission felt the figures we had did indicate that parcel
post was not carrying itself; therefore the Commission thought it
ought to state that there should be a request for an increase.
Mr. GARY. This last increase just went into effect during the past
fiscal year?
Mr. HOLLISTER. I would not know about that.
Mr. GARY. I think it has just recently gone into effect.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/ : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
Mr. HOLLISTER. But we were aware of that statutory provision and
thought we still ought to say something about the fact, inasmuch as.
the figures, as we understood, indicated there had been a recent loss,
that an adjustment should be made.
Mr. GARY. I am thoroughly in accord with the view that parcel
post should pay its own way. Several bills have been introduced to
repeal the section to which I referred. I think a bill is pending in the
Senate now. I hope it will not be repealed. But it seems to me if
at the present time parcel post is not paying its way, then the Post-
master General should immediately, under those sections, request an
increase in the rate.
Mr. HOLLISTER. That is exactly it.
Mr. ANDREWS. There is no doubt in your mind that the Postmaster
General has the authority?
Mr. GARY. Not only the authority, but he cannot get any money
out of the Treasury unless he does. And the Treasury has no busi-
ness paying him any money unless he does.
Mr. ANDREws. How .long has it been since your committee made
the recommendation that the rates be increased?
Mr. GARY. Our committee has not made a recommendation, be-
cause an application was filed with the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission immediately after the provision was added in 1950. Then
another application was filed which has just recently been approved
by the Commission. Naturally it would require some study as to the
effect of these increases to determine whether parcel post is now pay-
ing its way. But there have been two increases since this section was
put into effect.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Taber, do you have any questions?
Mr. TABER. I do not believe I have any questions at this time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Wilson?
Mr. WILSON. I would like to ask if the Hoover Commission is
reasonably sure that they will be able to wind up their operations
on time?
Mr. HOLISTER. Yes; with the extension. We have just told
everybody that it has got to be done. In fact, I am. disappointed
that we did not finish up in the original time, but we were faced with
unforeseen delays. We will be able to finish up within the time
indicated.
Mr. WILSON. Would such funds as remain automatically revert to
the Treasury as of the date the time expires?
Mr. HOLISTER. Yes; I so understand.
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr. HOLISTER, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
LIST OF WITNESSES
Baker, J. D_ Page
Brassor F. - P -----------------
Brownstein P. N - 19
--------------
Goulde, L. V--------------------------
Hollister, J. B--------- ------------`
-------- - 1
Kelsey, W ----------- _ i
F. - - --- ---
1I
Shyytlele, J. D D.., , r Jr--------------------------------------------------- --------------1
Sh-------
------------------
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5
INDEX
Page
Commission on organization of the Executive Branch of the Government 19
Analysis of needs -------------------------------
and unobligated balances-------------------- - 26
parcel post rates, legal requirements for adequate_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- _ _
21
Veterans' Administration -_____----------- 11
Readjustment benefits ------------------------------------- 3, 11,
Estimate, basis of ---------------------- 6, 13
7
Expenditure, rate of-----------------------
Loan guaranty program, increasein----------------- -------------- ----- 6,16
Training load, increase m-----------------------
0
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP86B00269R000100130001-5