ministration in the next few days, and I notice in the paper that much has been said about housing conditions. How many houses do you have down there now; how many do you think you will need of a permanent type; how many of a temporary type; who is going to build? Will private industry build them? How many people will you employ after you get started; how many houses will you need, and give us any other information in respect to housing. Mr. NELSON. Our most urgent need is for temporary housing to take care of what we think now will be close to 40,000 workers. Mr. THOMAS. Construction workers? Mr. NELSON. Yes. Mr. THOMAS. How many workers are there down there now, and how many will you have at the maximum? Mr. NELSON. We now have 17,300 or 400-we will have 47,000 at the peak next summer. Mr. THOMAS. How long will that peak last? Mr. NELSON. About two or three months. Mr. THOMAS. Your problem is for temporary housing for construction workers? Mr. NELSON. Yes. Mr. THOMAS. What about your problem after you get your production contract work completed, and the workers have gone back home? Mr. NELSON. The problem with us now is that they must be started now in order to house the operatioral workers when required. Mr. THOMAS. How many houses do you think you will need, and who will construct them, private industry? Mr. NELSON. We hope to have them built by private industryof course, they usually have a loan arrangement with the Federal Housing Authority. Mr. THOMAS. Have you asked Mr. Foley or Mr. Eagan to check on the housing, public housing in the locality? Mr. NELSON. Yes. Mr. THOMAS. How many units are there? Mr. NELSON. We figure now that we need about 4,000. Mr. THOMAS. Temporary or permanent? Mr. NELSON. Permanent. Mr. PHILLIPS. Housing or people? Mr. THOMAS. Housing. Mr. PHILLIPS. Are those for the construction workers? Mr. THOMAS. Public housing? Mr. NELSON. Housing or apartments. Mr. THOMAS. Do you think industry can supply the 4,000 units? Mr. NELSON. We hope so, yes. Mr. THOMAS. Maybe you did not understand my question: Are the 4,000 units to be constructed by private industry, with the help of the FHA, or are you going to be asked to help finance them for public housing? Mr. NELSON. There are some contractors who have enough money to finance their own housing developments, and who may not have to be bothered with the FHA, nor a Government subsidy, but simply make a loan arrangement with the Federal Housing Authority. Mr. THOMAS. Do you think you can get the housing needed satisfactorily, either through the FHA, or through private enterprise? Mr. NELSON. It still appears to be possible that we will get the housing that way. Mr. THOMAS. Any further questions? Mr. PHILLIPS. Right on that point: Why do you not want to put up temporary housing for the construction workers? Mr. NELSON. We have some 4,000 trailers for family quarters. Mr. PHILLIPS. What is going to be done with them when the construction work is over? Mr. NELSON. They are to be removed. Mr. PHILLIPS. Why can you not put up some kind of a structure that could be used by your regular permanent workers? Mr. NELSON. Of course, the houses that are built will be used temporarily by construction workers, and any permanent housing will be used by permanent employees who are not living in anything less than permanent or semipermanent housing. Mr. Cook. The operating employees overlap the construction employees. Mr. PHILLIPS. It would seem to me that you may have a complete waste on the units that are just being put up for construction workers Mr. NELSON. We are not paying for those. Mr. PHILLIPS. You ought to have, somehow, a leeway so that to take the trailers that are used, and put them outside the grounds, if necessary Mr. NELSON. These trailers are being brought in by a private company to be rented for a temporary period. Mr. PHILLIPS. They belong to a contractor? Mr. NELSON. They belong to a contractor who bid to furnish them on a rental basis; they do not belong to the Government. They cost the Government no money, except that we have guaranteed rental of 2 or 3 years. This probably will not result in any cost for them. Mr. THOMAS. Any further questions? POLICY OF AEC IN SUBCONTRACT WORK Mr. YATES. I have one question: What is the policy of the Atomic Energy Commission with relation to the distribution to subcontractors to small firms of work to be done? Mr. Cook. We encourage them to the fullest extent. Mr. YATES. In what way? Mr. Cook. Primarily in trying to obtain as wide as possible interest of people to submit bids who are qualified to provide the materials. Mr. YATES. Do you have a policy comparable to that of the procurement agency of the Government during the last war to actually see that the contractor is given some business? Mr. Cook. As I understand the policy in the last war, I forget the agency that was involved, but they had responsibility for placing a certain amount of contracts. Mr. YATES. You are thinking probably of the Small War Plants Corporation. Mr. Cook. Yes. Mr. YATES. But actually in their military procurement the agencies were interested in supervising the award by prime contractors of subcontracts to small business. Is that feasible for Atomic Energy, or do you have other things to do? Mr. Cook. Well, we do try to obtain as wide coverage as we can on all of our procurement. We do not try specifically to select companies in various areas. We award as the result of competitive bidding to the lowest bidder. Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I hope all of you will get together in a room sometime and see if you cannot reduce the cost of these buildings in some way. It may be a difficult job, but I surely hope it can be done. Mr. BOYER. We are working hard on it. Mr. THOMAS. Well, it is nice to see you all, and a lot of good luck to you. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1951. WITNESSES L. A. MOYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DAVID F. WILLIAMS, CHIEF, BUDGET AND FINANCE DIVISION, UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES-FEDERAL LOYALTY PROGRAM Mr. THOMAS. Gentlemen, the committee will please come to order. We have the pleasure of having with us this morning the Civil Service Commission who are appearing in connection with a supplemental estimate of $1,700,000 as contained in House Document No. 241. We have with us our distinguished friends, Mr. L. A. Moyer, the Executive Director of the Commission, and Mr. David F. Williams, Chief of the Budget and Finance Division of the Commission. I might say that our good friend, the Chairman, Mr. Ramspeck, has serious illness in his family and he is now over at Baltimore at Johns Hopkins with his family. He will not be able to be present but he has sent a statement over which I presume Mr. Moyer or Mr. William will like to read for the record. If so, we will be delighted to have it. Mr. MOYER. I have here a copy of the statement prepared by Mr. Ramspeck. Perhaps you would like to have it inserted in the record at this point. Mr. THOMAS. Yes. We will insert Mr. Ramspeck's prepared statement in the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF ROBERT RAMSPECK, CHAIRMAN, UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, when I assumed the duties of my present position on March 16, 1951, your committee had already heard the representatives of the Commission in regard to an appropriation for the fiscal year 1952. Before I had had much opportunity to familiarize myself with the problems of the Commission, a hearing was held before the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and I am afraid that in both cases we failed to bring to the committees a full understanding regarding the workload of the Commission which has been so greatly increased since the difficulty developed in Korea. At the time the Korean incident began, the appropriation for the Commission for the fiscal year 1951 had already been determined. This appropriation was based upon an estimate of some 400,000 placements; that is, new appointments and replacements of employees leaving the Federal service. Actually, more than a million placements were made in the fiscal year 1951, and we estimate that approximately a million placements will be made in fiscal year 1952. I feel sure that the Congress wants the Commission to have the necessary resources to keep current, or as near current as possible, with its responsibilities for checking the loyalty of the people who enter the Federal service. We cannot do so with the funds which have been given to us for the fiscal year 1952. I regret very much that it is not possible for me to be present at this hearing due to illness in my family and will appreciate having this statement inserted in the record. GENERAL STATEMENT Mr. MOYER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, funds are requested in this supplemental estimate for the fiscal year 1952 in the amount of $1,700,000 for the purpose of processing increased workloads under the Federal employees loyalty program and for certain investigative work derived therefrom. Serious backlogs of work have already accumulated and will continue to increase during the fiscal year creating a condition which in the Commission's opinion is a threat to national security. Under Executive Order 9835, which establishes the Federal employees loyalty program, the Civil Service Commission determines whether a question of loyalty exists regarding any person entering the executive branch of the Federal service. If such a question exists, the Commission refers the case to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a full personal investigation. Reports of these investigations are then furnished to the Civil Service Commission. Acting through its loyalty boards, the Commission determines whether or not the persons involved are qualified for Federal employment from the standpoint of loyalty. For persons who are not in the competitive service, those decisions are made by agency loyalty boards acting under directives issued by the Loyalty Review Board of the Civil Service Commission. In general, the amount of work the Commission must do under the loyalty program is in proportion to the number of new workers entering the Federal service. The expansion in the Federal Government during the last fiscal year and which is continuing to some degree this fiscal year, has brought about an increase in workload that the Commission will not be able to handle with available funds. We entered this fiscal year with a carry-over of 430,000 record check and inquiry cases from last year. We estimate we will receive an additional 800,000 cases this fiscal year making a total workload for this item of over 1,200,000 cases. Funds currently available will permit the processing of only 670,000 of these cases, leaving approximately 500,000 cases uncompleted. This will mean that there will be about one-half million employees on the job in the Federal Government for whom the question of loyalty has not been decided. In view of world conditions, the Commission does not believe that such a backlog of loyalty checks should be permitted. The workloads in the adjudicative phases of the loyalty program as handled through the regional loyalty boards and the Loyalty Review Board are derivatives of the processing of record check and inquiry cases. The funds requested for this work is therefore in proportion to the increased number of record check and inquiries to be processed. Mr. PHILLIPS. If I may interrupt, are you not going to find it difficult to just increase the numbers arbitrarily? You have to have a trained staff and so forth. Are you going to touch on that? Mr. MOYER. Yes, I will. Mr. PHILLIPS. Excuse me for interrupting. Mr. MOYER. Funds are also being requested in this supplemental estimate to cover personal investigations on serious matters of suitability. These cases originate through the processing of a record check and inquiry case under the loyalty program. When a record check or inquiry develops a serious question as to suitability (other than loyalty), a personal investigation is conducted by the Čommission. These investigations are only conducted in cases where the derogatory information is of such a serious nature that, if established by investigation, it would require the separation of the employee. Conversions to personal investigations are based upon serious adverse information on such matters as sex offenses, alleged criminal conduct, embezzlement, gross dishonesty, theft of Government property, and so forth. Such information not only raises a serious question as to the suitability of the person for employment in the Federal Government, but also raises a question as to security reliability for employment in a position connected with the national defense. Such persons are investigated by the Civil Service Commission and if questions relating to such matters are found to be true, the Commission instructs the employing agency to dismiss the employee; if they are not in the competitive service, the facts are reported to the employing agency for appropriate action. Defense agencies, including the Department of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, rely on the Commission for making such investigations of new appointees and for ordering the removal of employees whose demonstrated unsuitability mark them as security risks. Our experience indicates that approximately one out of four of the employees whose cases are converted to investigations of this type are found upon completion of the investigation to be poor security risks or whose employment would bring disrepute upon the Federal Government. In conclusion, we wish to point out to the committee that funds requested in this supplemental estimate will not bring our workloads down to normal by the end of this fiscal year. The estimate was calculated on the basis of the number of employees we could recruit, train, and effectively use for the remainder of this fiscal year. However, it will materially assist in meeting the desirable objectives of (1) separating promptly or preventing the employment of persons about whom there is a reasonable doubt of loyalty, (2) separating promptly or preventing the employment of persons who are security risks or otherwise unsuitable for reasons other than loyalty, and (3) providing current information to defense agencies for use in the clearance of employees for access to classified information or material up to the top-secret level. |