responding number of pages of transcript and those estimated for fiscal years 1965 and 1966: On January 1, 1965, the Commission changed its hearings procedure in order to reduce the number of oral hearings required. The effect of this action is shown by the reduction in the number of hearings in fiscal year 1964 and 1965. However, the average number of pages of transcript per hearing has steadily increased. This is shown in column (3) of the table above. The full effect of the procedural change was realized in the first half of fiscal year 1965. From that point on the number of hearings have again increased due to the upward trend in the number of cases being filed with the Commission. Fiscal year 1966 estimated level of transcript pages for field hearings will result in an outlay of $185,000, at the bid price of 50 cents per page. These amounts were computed as follows: An estimate was made of the total number of pages of transcript for fiscal year 1966 by applying three factors to the fiscal year 1964 actual figures. These were (1) the decrease in hearings due to the procedural change, (2) the increase in the average number of pages of transcript per hearing, and (3) the increase in caseload. These factors, when applied to the fiscal year 1964 actual, resulted in an estimate for fiscal year 1966 of 370,000 pages of transcript for hearings conducted outside of Washington, D.C. The CSA Reporting Service bid of 50 cents was applied to the estimate. This results in an estimate of $185,000 for fiscal year 1966 for the transcript itself. Mr. EVINS. We note you want $185,000 because you say with all the money we gave you, you are running out of funds. Mr. BUSH. That is substantially it. Mr. EVINS. We will be glad to hear you. Mr. BUSH. The statement pretty generally covers the basis of our problem, Mr. Chairman. As we said in it, for the 4 years from 1960 to 1964, we were only able to obtain one bid on the reporting contract and then in 1964 we obtained none, and had to negotiate with the only available bidder there. In 1965 we were informed ahead of time that there would be nobody interested in bidding unless they could charge something for the copies we have been getting free. I think we have been pretty fortunate over the years to have been getting this free. A good many of the Government units and agencies did not. Mr. EVINS. Do you mean there is less interest in the work and the hearings and the decisions of the ICC? They are not selling enough copies to justify them giving you a free copy? Mr. BUSH. Well, the new copying machines, according to the reporting services, are about to put them out of business. They used to sell a number of copies, and they have told us that all they ever want to make is 5 percent gross on their business and have offered to open their books to any audit that we would want to make, if there was any kind of a way we could write a contract that would assure them of that. But the parties lately have been getting together and one party would buy a copy and then they would just take them back and reproduce them for a nominal sum and sell them to other parties. They bid this time 50 cents per page of transcript for the field hearings and still are willing to make no charge for those which we hold in Washington. That compares to 85 cents for the field hearings and 75 cents they charge everybody but the Government. Ours is 50 cents and zero against 85 and 75. We have compared the charges with other agencies of Government and even here on the Hill I understand they get $1.40 a page if they are allowed to sell copies and $1.65 if they aren't. Mr. EVINS. How long have the reporters been giving you the free service? Mr. BUSH. I think it was in 1956. It was before the advent of these modern copying machines. Mr. EVINS. Haven't you already let your contract for the next year? Is the bidding time closed for your reporting service? Mr. BUSH. Yes, we have. In prior years we have asked, knowing that at any time we might have no bid at all, as in 1964, or we might have a bid as in 1965, where we would have to pay and we have put in a figure in the budget request tentative that if we had to use it we would have it in there and each time-we had a figure in the budget in case we would have to come to this position and each time it was stricken from the budgetI think probably rightly so. They said "If you ever come to the point where you have to have it, at that time we will talk to you." Mr. EVINS. Out of $26,915,000 budget, couldn't you absorb this? We just got the regular budget worked out with the Senate, the President just signed the new bill into law and you ought to absorb this amount until your regular budget. Mr. SCHMID. The actual amount of money we have this year will give us less average employment than we have had in previous years. Now we have allocated our money for fiscal year 1966. We have carved down our travel money to a bare minimum. We have taken our supplies down to a bare minimum; we have taken our equipment down to a bare minimum. We have it right down to a bare minimum. If we have to absorb this $185,000, which is an entirely unexpected item which was not in the budget Mr. EVINS. We are not saying absorb it completely right now, but couldn't you get by until you present your regular budget? Mr. SCHMID. No, because we are talking about between now and next June 30. As a matter of fact, we are already absorbing some, Mr. Chairman, because we think it is going to cost us more than $185,000 just to pay this 50 cents for each page of transcript based upon our experience. We have carved it down to $185,000. Mr. EvINS. We saw your figures here of the number of hearings conducted outside Washington, 2,689 in 1963 and estimated 2,418, which is a lesser number, in 1966. Pages of transcript, 370,000. Now, these are all outside the District of Columbia? Mr. SCHMID. That is correct, but you will also notice the number of pages per hearing increased. This is primarily because of the merger cases which sometimes run 10,000 pages of transcript. So, although we have taken our own steps, procedural steps to reduce the total number of hearings, we are trying to schedule our hearings so we have as many as we possibly can in Washington, D.C. The fact remains, although we have fewer hearings Mr. EVINS. You are multiplying 370,000 by 50 cents. That is where you get your $185,000. Mr. SCHMID. That is right. But that is after taking into consideration that, through changing our proceedings we are trying to eliminate as many oral hearings as we possibly can, but that is offset by the fact that we have had an average increase over the past 3 years of about 15 percent in our total overall cases. Mr. EVINS. You are trying to eliminate your oral hearings. Why would you do that? Why couldn't you handle a lot of these in an informal way? Mr. SCHMID. You can't because of the Administrative Procedures Act. We have devised procedures to the extent we can under the law to minimize the total number of oral hearings. We have gone about as far as we can go on that. As a matter of fact, if we hadn't taken those steps together with some of our reorganization plans made more manpower available to handle these cases, we would be in even more trouble. Mr. EVINS. The supplementary or deficiency process is for real emergencies. You insist that this is a real emergency down at the ICC? Mr. BUSH. Yes, we certainly do, Mr. Chairman. As nearly as I can tell from my conversations with Mr. Schmid and Mr. Ryan, the only place that we could possibly find this unexpected sum would be in reducing personnel and I honestly believe that we should not be asked to try to do it any further than we have because I think that no portion of our economy is in more direct ratio to the gross national product or the total economy than is transportation and as it has risen, so have the problems of transportation. Our caseload, as we have told you on other occasions, has gone up to about 10,000 a year of formal cases plus heaven knows how many thousands of less important matters. Throughout the entire regulatory area of the country in transportation, as the volume of transportation increases, so do the problems of the ICC increase. We don't feel we are doing an adequate job in our policing of safety on the highways, which is of extreme interest to the Congress and to the administration now, and other areas. As I say, when your caseload goes up to 10,000 a year, formal cases, I just don't see how we can get it cut out of personnel. Mr. EVINS. Are there any questions by any of the members? Mr. BOLAND. I think you have been fortunate in getting these copies for nothing over the past 9 years. I might also say I would disagree 53-537-65 with the established policy of the Commission with respect to making copies of transcripts which are obtained. I can't understand how you ever established this policy. Why couldn't the company buy the transcript and make a copy of it? Why would you make a policy against this? Mr. SCHMID. The company isn't- Mr. EVINS. Put out a regulation. Mr. BOLAND. I don't know how the Commission would take the steps to discourage the practice of a purchaser making copies. Mr. BUSH. I had made a check here to ask if we might make a correction in the interpretation of this statement. As it now reads, it says, "Many purchasers have reduced their purchases to one copy and have made additional copies on these machines." And that "we are opposed to that." It is giving a slightly wrong impression. It is perfectly proper for a company to buy one and make all the copies they want, but what this statement should have said—and I would like to see it corrected to read properly-the practice is of the parties getting together and one party buying the copy and then selling them to the others. We have not made that clear. Mr. EVINS. Mr. Shipley, have you any questions? Mr. SHIPLEY. No questions. Mr. EVINS. Mr. Minshall? Mr. MINSHALL. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. EVINS. My impression on this is that it is a small item in the big budget of the ICC and that you could have waited on this until you submit your regular budget in January. I don't see the emergency nature of it like you gentlemen do. You always make a good case for transportation. Your reporter is going to continue to serve you. He has served you over many years and you are going to settle accounts satisfactorily. They are not going to stop reporting your hearings. Mr. SCHMID. Mr. Chairman, we will not be able to pay this reporting company out of moneys appropriated next year. We have to pay for it out of moneys appropriated this year and the only way we can do this quite frankly, I just made a fast calculation here—we are going to have to reduce our staff by 20 people. Our average salary is $9,500-we will have to immediately reduce our staff by 20 people if we have to pay the reporting company to cover this contract this year. Mr. EVINS. You haven't had any hearings on this big railroad merger case yet? Mr. SCHMID. No. Mr. MINSHALL. Twenty people out of how large a staff? Mr. SCHMID. 2.400. Mr. BUSH. I would add this, too, that as this workload has increased so tremendously over, we will say the past 7 to 8 years, the total number of people that the ICC employs in the whole United States has only increased by 200. I doubt there are very many Government agencies Mr. EVINS. It is a great agency. It is the pioneer regulatory agency. It is one used as a model. You do a great work and it is nice to have you before us and we thank you very much. We will take the matter under consideration. We thank you very much for coming. Mr. BUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope everything works out well. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1965. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES ROBERT T. GRIFFIN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR WILLIAM P. TURPIN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION EDMUND D. DWYER, DIRECTOR, DATA PROCESSING COORDINATION STAFF WILLIAM A. BUTTS, DIRECTOR, BUDGET DIVISION WILLIAM A. SCHMIDT, ACTING COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE JOHN P. MOHR, ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION JOSEPH J. CASPER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, TRAINING DIVISION H. A. ABERSFELLER, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE Mr. EVINS. We have with us our friends from the General Services Administration. Mr. Administrator, we have looked over your justification. You have three items. You ask for $14,763,000 to begin construction of a Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy and then you want $901,000 for sites and expenses for this project. You also have two other programs for which you request funds as indicated in House Docu ment 278. GENERAL STATEMENT You have a brief statement which we shall insert in the record. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we are requesting supplemental funds for 1966 under three items for General Services Administration. 1. Design and construction money for a new FBI Academy building at Quantico, Va.; 2. Funds to permit GSA to adequately carry out its new responsibilities dealing with Government-wide automatic data processing; and 3. Increased funds for supply support to Department of Defense that is related to the buildup in southeast Asia. The appropriation for the new FBI Academy will permit an early start on this much needed facility. Current facilities for the Academy at Quantico are wholly inadequate and the new project is one of high priority. The new item for automatic data processing coordination is essential to permit GSA to move forward in operation of computer sharing exchanges and guides for Government-wide management techniques, procurement, and utilization. The Government's annual ADP bill now totals some $3 billion. The request in this supplemental will afford a good start for cost reduction efforts in this field. |