POSITIONS AND EMPLOYMENT Mr. McFALL. You are requesting on page 2, 100 additional positions for fiscal year 1972. How many of your 717 authorized positions are presently filled, Mr. Toms? Mr. Toмs. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Mr. Scott answer that, because he has all the figures before him. Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, we have 648 filled or committed positions, of which 18 are firm commitments with entrance on duty dates. Mr. McFALL. What is your estimated employment as of June 30, 1971? Mr. SCOTT. 690, sir, which is the same as our employment ceiling. Mr. McFALL. What would it be at June 30, 1972, if you receive the requested 817 for total 1972 ? Mr. SCOTT. We tentatively estimate that our onboard employment would be approximately 41 less than the positions authorized, which roughly approximates normal lapse. This is reflected, Mr. Chairman, on page 76 of the justifications which shows 1972 yearend employment of 776 positions. Mr. McFALL. Are you presently operating under any employment or expenditure ceiling from OMB or DOT? If so, what is it? Mr. SCOTT. We have an expenditure ceiling of $106 million which is consistent with previous spending trends, and an employment ceiling of 690 in relationship to 717 authorized positions. IMPACT OF REVENUE SHARING Mr. McFALL. On page 2 you indicate that implementation of the President's revenue-sharing proposal will not affect the 1972 appropriation request. To what extent would enactment of this proposal allow you to reduce personnel in future years? Mr. SCOTT. I think that the revenue-sharing proposal is not a manpower saving proposition but just what its term implies, revenue sharing. My personal view is that it will tend to underscore the sort of action we have been taking for the last 2 years in significantly increasing the proportion of our positions in the field, getting our technical personnel out where the action is so they can relate to the States and help them in the development and execution of their workload. Mr. McFALL. The trouble is that it would also require additional State personnel, would it not? SIMILARITY TO PRESENT PROGRAM OPERATIONS Mr. Scorr. Sir, the States presently are setting forth their recommendations. We have increasingly tried to give them maximum flexibility. For example, last June Mr. Toms rescinded the previous priorities letter and urged that they make their own judgments, coupled with having a strong alcohol program. Whereas today, they are making recommendations through their annual work program, in the future they would be making basic decisions with regard to how they would allocate their funds. They would be making a firm decision and would have more flexibility. We feel they would still need a great deal of technical assistance in assuring optimum utilization of the funds they elected to devote to highway safety. Mr. Toмs. I think that one of the tough issues has been the ability to document your priorities at the State level. I think back in my days as a State public official, one of the things that always concerned me was that everything was pigeonholed or earmarked. A lot of times you felt you had special local needs that you wanted to meet and there were no means by which you could meet them. I think that what revenue sharing will do--and one of the reasons we like it is because it kind of follows the concepts we have been following in our annual highway work plan, where it really won't require more people at either end of any significance is to let them make the decisions on the basis of need. We are merely then in a position of monitoring what these needs and priorities are and making sure they do it well. It should strengthen our hand. It really should allow them to face up to their problems and force them to identify them. I think particularly in poor programs this has been a problem. NEW PROGRAM CONCEPTS Mr. McFALL. If they don't do it well, then what? Mr. Toмs. Then our regional people in particular sit down with them and indicate where we disagree with them and what we see these needs to be and ask them to document their position. Mr. McFALL. But it would be their money, so you wouldn't have anything to say about how they would spend it. Mr. Toмs. On revenue sharing of course we are putting a certain amount of money into the pot. Whereas we are not telling them exactly where they have got to spend it, we are definitely going to monitor it and make sure it is spent properly. Mr. GOLDBERG. Mr. Chairman, under revenue sharing in this program, the requirements that States must be implementing comprehensive highway safety programs, which are in fact approved by the Secretary, will still be a requirement of the legislation. Although we are not telling the States how to spend their specific annual allocation of funds, we are telling them that they must move forward in this area of highway safety and they must move forward to the satisfaction of the Secretary. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRESENT PROGRAMS AND REVENUE SHARING Mr. McFALL. What would be the differences between the present program and revenue sharing? Mr. GOLDBERG. As far as our program is concerned—and I am speaking for the highway safety program Mr. McFALL. That is all that we are considering now. Mr. GOLDBERG. Basically there are two differences as I see them. First, there would not be a dedicated fund, a specific allocation. Instead, the program would be funded from the special revenue sharing in transportation. Second, the annual work programs of the States in transportation and in highway safety would not be subject to approval by the Department. It would be subject to review by the Department but not approval. Mr. McFALL. What does that mean? What is the difference between approval and review? Mr. Toмs. I guess the best way to say it is if we reached an impasse, they would be able to go ahead and spend the money, whereas under the situation where we had approval, of course we would stop the expenditure of the money. Mr. McFALL. You would be advisory only? Mr. Toмs. In some aspects it would be a working together kind of approach. Mr. McFALL. Suppose they chose to spend the money on some other transportation program? RESPONSIBILITY TO MEET SAFETY STANDARDS Mr. GOLDBERG. They still must meet our standards. They still must show progress in implementing programs which meet our standards. If they fail to do so, in a situation where a State is very recalcitrant and refuses to move, there still is a penalty provision in the law. Mr. McFALL. What is the penalty provision? Mr. GOLDBERG. The penalty provision is now up to 10 percent of the Federal aid highway funds. Under the special revenue sharing provisions it will be 10 percent of the interstate funds. The interstate program, as you know, remains a categorical grant, whereas the rest of the Federal aid highway program is frozen into revenue sharing. Mr. McFALL. In order for you to have any control over them, you would have to withhold 10 percent of their highway construction money? Mr. Toмs. We find in actual practice, Mr. Chairman, that generally they like to work with us. We think our relationships with them are pretty good. Mr. McFALL. Isn't that because you approve their program? Mr. Toмs. No; I think it is because we actually try to be helpful and constructive and not destructive. Mr. McFALL. You don't think the fact that you can approve or disapprove their program is an incentive for the States to work with you? Mr. Toмs. We do attempt to compare States. We put out a report card. Maybe this is not a nice way to say it, but we do attempt to get the States to work together and unconsciously compare themselves with their colleagues. There is competition going. We think they want to go ahead and we think there is a good teamwork spirit. There is a good healthy competition here. TRAFFIC AND HIGHWAY SAFETY Mr. McFALL. Let us turn to Traffic and Highway Safety. Insert pages 4 through 13 in the record. (The justification pages referred to follow :) /Selected resources as of June 30 are as follows: Unpaid undelivered orders, 1969, $18,977 thousand; 1970, $24,585 thousand; 1971, $30,235 thousand; 1972, $52,335 thousand. STANDARD FORM 300 July 1964, Bureau of the Budget 300-101 Identification code 21-27-0550-0-503 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION TRAFFIC AND HIGHWAY SAFETY Program and Financing (in thousands of dollars)-- Continued Relation of obligations to outlays: |