that the better directed and more enthusiastic work force will do more work. It is uncertain whether the increased production will fully offset the increase in work load in the revenue accounting and processing area. Increased production in the direct enforcement areas is anticipated from about the same staff. Some relatively small program changes have been made to provide for unavoidable increases in costs for 1959, and to permit the continuation of the promotion program. Th things being curtailed are, in themselves, desirable and beneficial to the Service. However, from the standpoint of the overall welfare of the Service and its total job they are not as important as the continuation of the promotion program. This program is the keystone to the development of a better and more stable work force, well trained, well directed, and interested in the job. Increases in productivity both last year and again this year leave no doubt as to the practical advantages of the program. The details concerning the Service's operations in 1957 and 1958, and its proposed program for 1959 will be found in the budget justifications for each activity. EXPLANATION OF LANGUAGE CHANGES The Internal Revenue Service is proposing additional language to the appropriation text for the fiscal year 1959, as follows: "Provided, That not to exceed $200,000 of the amount appropriated herein shall be available for expenses of instruction and facilities for the training of employees by contract, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury." Similar language was included in the appropriation text for the Internal Revenue Service for the fiscal years 1955, 1956, and 1957. This language was deleted by the Congress in the 1958 Appropriation Act due to a misunderstanding as to its purpose. The Comptroller General, after correspondence with the chairmen of the Subcommittees on Treasury-Post Office Appropriations in both Houses, authorized the Internal Revenue Service to incur expenses of this nature during the fiscal year 1958 with the understanding that it would be necessary to procure express statutory authority after the expiration of the 1958 fiscal year or until general legislation for the training of Government employees was enacted. There is little likelihood that general legislation wil be enacted in time to provide this authority in the fiscal year 1959. The contract authority is necessary for the management and supervisory training. The program we have developed has been universally accepted by all echelons of management and supervision throughout the Internal Revenue Service. Those who have taken the courses are enthusiastic about them and feel that they have benefited tremendously. We are certain that a large portion of the improvement in employee morale and production throughout the field offices is attributable to better supervision resulting from the training given to date. The Service will have provided management and supervisory training to 1,065 executives and supervisors from 1955 through September 21, 1957. This training was given to all executives from Assistant Commissioners and regional commissioners to and including district office division chiefs, as well as a number of group supervisors. Our 1959 program provides for the training of about 1,000 supervisors beginning at the branch-chief level and extending to and including group supervisors. The total number yet to be trained in this program is 1,608, as follows: Branch chiefs in field offices_ Other supervisors in both national and field offices_. Total_ 567 100 151 790 1,608 It is our plan to train these supervisors in order of rank and until all have been given training. The contract cost of training 1,000 employees is approximately $165,000. This figure, of course, is subject to some variation, depending upon situations as they may arise. We, therefore, feel that the minimum limitation on our training contract authority should be placed at $200,000. In the event that more than 1,000 employees can be trained within this limitation, training will proceed to the extent that it can be covered by the limitations in the contract. COAST GUARD LACK OF COAST GUARD RESCUE BOATS Senator ROBERTSON. Now, Mr. Secretary, we come to one of the most interesting items in the budget. That is the Coast Guard, the only item that the House got liberal with and upped the budget estimate. I will ask you a few questions about the operations of the Coast Guard. I want to outline to you the difficulty I have had with the Coast Guard. Down on the Potomac River a man had a little boat and he was almost swamped, and the Coast Guard did not have a boat to get out there for him. The storm was just too big for it. On the Virginia side, a friend of mine who had a pretty good cabin cruiser went out and rescued the man. There have been several instances of that kind, and 2 weeks ago I wrote the commandant of the Coast Guard a letter saying that they did not have the equipment on the lower Potomac and part of the bay to do the job that is required. Certainly you could not expect the owners of private yachts and power boats to assume the responsibility of rescuing those who are caught in a small craft in a sudden storm, and I would like to know before we reach the end of the hearing today; first, does the Coast Guard have a boat that it could transfer, and, second, if it did not have it, is there money enough to get it? Third, if they did not have it and did not have enough money to get it, would they have enough in what the House has given? Fourth, if they do not have it in any way, how much would we have to put in there? My policy is to answer an inquiry the same day. If I cannot give them all the information, I tell them, "We received your letter. This is what I know now, and the rest I will give when I get it." DISCUSSION REGARDING LETTER Two weeks after I wrote to the commandant-and I wanted the information before today--I received a letter from an assistant saying that he had relayed my request to somebody down in Norfolk, and when his reply came back he would give us some information. That is 2 weeks after. I am interested in the Coast Guard and I have supported their program, but I just wonder if they treat all the Members of the Senate that way, and the public even worse, because I imagine if they treat the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that way, that others might not get answers at all. I do not know. I just want a little information if that is indicative of the way the Coast Guard is operating. Mr. SCRIBNER. I am sure, Senator, you know it is not indicative of the way it is operating. I am sorry about the delay in answering this letter and we certainly will check on it and find where the responsibility is. Senator ROBERTSON. The admiral is sitting right behind you now. If you want to call on him, I will be glad for him to explain why, when I sent this letter and told him I needed the information promptly, and I did not get even a reply from him but from somebody in his office, and it did not reach me until this morning just before I came over here. Mr. SCRIBNER. Yes, sir, I will be glad to have the admiral answer that question. Admiral RICHMOND. With respect to the letter from you, Senator, we received it on March 3. Senator ROBERTSON. I wrote you in Washington and mailed the letter on the 28th. Are we going to have to ask General Summerfield what time he got it to you? Admiral RICHMOND. The reply did not get out promptly. There was an undue delay. Our usual practice is to answer all letters within 48 hours. The answer went out on the 10th of March. It was a week later. Senator ROBERTSON. Wait a minute. I did not get it until this morning. Admiral RICHMOND. The date on the outgoing letter was last Monday. Senator ROBERTSON. The answer was "We will ask somebody down in Norfolk about this." SEARCH AND RESCUE FACILITIES Admiral RICHMOND. This question of the workload in any particular place is widespread over the whole country. The area that you are interested in, namely, the lower Potomac, is one in which we have no search and rescue units now. The letter was referred there for an evaluation of the requirement. There is no doubt that we do not have sufficient facilities to meet every area all over the United States. Senator ROBERTSON. I understand that. It is not only a historic area but it is a very poor area and we are spending money for that inland waterway. More people are going to be coming back and forth than ever before, and certainly the Potomac is one of our very famous rivers and we ought not to let people get out there on the assumption that it is just a river and anybody can navigate a rowboat or anything in it. They get down there where the river flows into the bay and the waves will be 12 and 15 feet high and turn them over. You do not challenge that, do you? Admiral RICHMOND. We have no equipment for search and rescue except on a spot basis during the summer north of Norfolk until you get into the Baltimore area. Senator ROBERTSON. They are rapidly developing motorboats and pleasure boats there on the Potomac River and outside of it. Do you not think it is reasonable of those men down there to expect you to have at least one boat to sail up and down the Potomac and that part of the bay in really rough weather so you could get out and help somebody? Admiral RICHMOND. They undoubtedly expect it, sir, yes. Senator ROBERTSON. Certainly they expect it, but do you think that is an unreasonable expectation? We sing out the praises of the Coast Guard and we think it is so valuable to us, and they do not understand why on this particular stretch of water the Coast Guard does not function with its semper paratus tradition. What can we do about it? Admiral RICHMOND. Assuming that that need in that area is greater than where we have other requirements, the only answer at the present time would be to redeploy a boat from some other area. 22904-584 Senator ROBERTSON. Do I understand that that is going to be properly evaluated? Mr. SCRIBNER. Yes, sir; we will be glad to look into that at once. Admiral RICHMOND. The evaluation has already been ordered, sir. Senator ROBERTSON. Thank you, sir. COAST GUARD ACADEMY Mr. Secretary, the House increased the acquisition, construction, and improvements item in the bill, I believe, for apparently a muchneeded new dormitory at New London. Will you testify about that? Mr. SCRIBNER. Yes, sir. When our appropriation bill came before the House a motion was made from the floor to add $2 million to the Coast Guard item for acquisition, construction, and improvements, with direction that it be used to build a barracks at the Coast Guard Academy at New London. This was not an item which we had put into our budget submission, nor was it an item which had been added by the Appropriations Committee in the House. LETTER FROM SENATOR BUSH Senator ROBERTSON. Senator Bush said he is a member of the Board of Visitors, that he had been there, and the barracks were unsafe, and that he knows personally that this new construction is needed. He asked me to put in the record a letter that he wrote to that effect to the chairman of the full committee and sent me a copy of it. That letter will be offered now. (The letter referred to follows:) UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, March 11, 1958. Hon. CARL HAYDEN, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR HAYDEN: When H. R. 11085, the Treasury and Post Office Departments, and the tax court of the United States appropriation bill, 1959, was under consideration in the House of Representatives, Representative Horace Seely-Brown (Second District, Connecticut) offered a floor amendment to provide $2 million for the construction of new dormitory facilities at the United States Coast Guard Academy at New London, Conn. The amendment was accepted by a substantial vote in the House, and I am writing at this time to urge your committee to support this urgently needed appropriation. As a member of the Board of Visitors to the Coast Guard Academy, and as one who has visited this fine institution on many occasions, I can personally testify regarding the dangerous conditions in the temporary wooden barracks which were built in World War II. In the interest of safety, it is essential that they be replaced by permanent fire-proof structures. I would appreciate it if you will have this letter included in the record of the hearings on H. R. 11085. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, PRESCOTT BUSH, United States Senator. NEED FOR BARRACKS REPLACEMENT Senator ROBERTSON. Do you think Senator Bush is right in saying that this work is needed? Mr. SCRIBNER. The barracks now in use is a wooden barracks which is old. It needs to be replaced, but we do not believe that it is unsafe. This is one of the items which, if we had all of the money that we could ask for, would be on our list. We had felt that it was not an item that we would ask for in this particular year. Senator ROBERTSON. I know you did not ask for it and that there was no budget estimate, and the House put it in. Do you object to it being built if the Senate wishes to concur? Mr. SCRIBNER. If the Senate wishes to concur, having heard our submission and having in mind, as I know you do, the overall budgetary problems that we have, that certainly is a matter that we at the Treasury would take under very serious consideration and direct. We, of course, would have to again clear it with the Bureau of the Budget, but we would feel that we had taken our direction from the Congress action. Senator DIRKSEN. Did you discuss this in your budget presentation with the Budget Bureau? Mr. SCRIBNER. No, sir, we did not. Senator DIRKSEN. It was never discussed there? Mr. SCRIBNER. We did not request this item. As you can understand, there are large lists of items that come in, and since we did not request this one, they had no reason to direct their attention to it. Senator BRIDGES. How much is involved? Mr. SCRIBNER. $2 million. Senator BRIDGES. My impression is that there are a great many things that are desirable in the world today, but it is a question of how many of them are absolutely necessary. With every agency and bureau wanting new stuff, I think that you are to be commended for not including it. Mr. SCRIBNER. We have tried to keep in mind the fact that, as I said earlier, almost everyone of our bureaus has things which it could use to advantage. We cannot provide them all in any 1 year or any 2 or 3 years, and you have to make some choices. Senator DIRKSEN. Let me ask your own budget officer, was this matter discussed in your own budget considerations? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. Senator DIRKSEN. Were there any requests? Mr. JOHNSON. There were. Senator DIRKSEN. Why not put a little amplified statement in the record at this point indicating that it was discussed, what representations, if any, were made, and the basis for the conclusion not to request the Budget Bureau to include it in the 1959 budget? Mr. JOHNSON. I can tell you now, Senator. The Coast Guard requested consideration of this item along with other items on the priority list. As the Secretary has just testified, obviously we could not get all of these items in the budget. The matter was thoroughly considered and discussed within the Department, but, with the necessity of holding our estimate as low as we could, consistent with the administration's policy, we were forced to eliminate this item along with several other items of high priority. Senator DIRKSEN. So it was adequately explored within your own budget considerations? Mr. JOHNSON. It was. Senator ROBERTSON. As the members of the committee know, of course, the Coast Guard at one time was used very extensively to en |