1959:

Complaint actions for fiscal years (fiscal years 1960, 1961, and 1962 by type of case; fiscal year 1963 by Bureaus)

Deceptive practices

Total.

INCREASE OVER FISCAL YEAR 1964 REQUEST

This calls for an increase of $1,055,250 over the 1964 appropriation, but more than 80 percent of this increase will be required for costs over which our agency has only limited control-including $250,000 for a half-year cost of the January 5, 1964, pay raise, $221,250 to restore personal service and travel funds that had to be taken out of our enforcement programs in 1964, $159,000 for increased operating costs, $80,000 for within grade increases required by law, $60,000 for promotions necessary to keep the most able of our young attorneys from being lured away by too tempting salaries in private business, and $114,000 to purchase the electronic computer now being rented. This will save the Government $41,000 a year beginning 2 years after the purchase in addition to saving $29,000 in rent in 1965. The total increase we ask provides for only 27 new positions costing $171,000, with 25 of these needed to bolster the Commission's mandatory obligation to police the Wool, Fur, Textile, and Flammable Fabrics Act.

Senator MONRONEY. Each of the independent agencies and almost all others that come before the Appropriations Committee seem to have a glint in their eye to purchase their own computers. I think the record should show the purpose of your computer and whether it is saving any personnel costs or other costs in the agency.

We are glad to have you here, Mr. Chairman, and you may proceed in your own way with your statement.

STATEMENT OF PAUL RAND DIXON, CHAIRMAN

Mr. DIXON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are glad to be here. In asking for an appropriation of $13,270,000 for fiscal 1965, the Federal Trade Commission seeks essentially to maintain its authorized strength while coping with a mounting workload by making even more effective use of its new programs to avert or correct law violations on the most equitable and broadest scale possible.

Mr. DIXON. I think we have got that in detail in this.

Senator MONRONEY. It does come later?

Mr. DIXON. It is in the body. But let me try to summarize it, and let Mr. Glendening fill it out.

Senator MONRONEY. I think we are going to have to be concerned whether every agency should have one, or, having rented one, making a purchase of it.

SURVEY OF NEED FOR COMPUTER

Mr. DIXON. I would like to say before we entered into this contract that under existing requirements of the Budget Bureau, we had to have a survey team in and our whole program gone over in detail and also to be certain that whatever we were proposing to buy, rather than to continue the rental program, to see that it would not be wasted money if there was ever any future increase, and the proof for us was the type of machine we are talking about here.

Now, you know, I would say for more than 20 years the Federal Trade Commission in conjunction with the Securities and Exchange Commission has regularly issued quarterly financial reports which are widely used and are very valuable to the business community. Now, this information is regularly collected by SEC and by the Fed

eral Trade Commission on a sampling basis from the business community. It, of course, has to be correlated and fed into some type of machine in order to come out with these statistics which we issue

once every quarter.

Now, the machine which we have now will give us how much more efficiency and how much saving?

Mr. GLENDENING. A minimum of 300 percent increase in efficiency over the card EAM machines.

Senator MONRONEY. Punchcard machines?

TYPE OF EQUIPMENT

Mr. GLENDENING. This is also punchcard equipment; this is a cardoriented computer.

Mr. DIXON. Senator, for years, I suppose like the other Government agencies, our rental EAM card machines required punched cards to be run repeatedly back and forth through these machines to produce final statistics, and we were paying a high rental figure. Now, a directive was sent through pertaining to computer installations, that it would be good economy if you could project ahead and show that you would save money to purchase the equipment. It would make sense to save by purchase rather than to keep on renting. I think this went generally through the Government. It was so clear that we were in this position that we proposed to the Budget Bureau that we install and subsequently purchase this computer.

PERSONNEL SAVING

Now, it is on a basis where we can either purchase or continue renting it, but to purchase is a clear saving. It is a distinct saving, and there are no two ways about it. It can be proven very favorably. Senator MONRONEY. What personnel saving would you estimate? Mr. GLENDENING. The personnel saving immediately will be at least $20,000 a year. However

Senator MONRONEY. That is the salary of what, two or three people? Mr. GLENDENING. That would be about three people at the moment. There are some other savings that I think ought to be brought out in connection with this. If I may go off the record for just one second.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. GLENDENING. Now, the computer has been installed on a rental basis. We will save $29,000 next year over what we would have paid had we not installed a computer because I would have had to put in more slow card-handling machinery and more people to operate it, whereas with the current equipment I have hired no new people yet. We are now operating the computer with our current staff. It will save $29,000 in rental next year and if purchased next year, after 2 years the Government will save a minimum of $41,000 a year over the cost that we would have been paying if we do not purchase this equipment in 1965.

VALUE OF COMPUTER ON LONG CASES

Mr. DIXON. I think it would be also interesting to the committee. I looked at this machine and the thing fascinated me with all these gadgets and lights on it, and actually it was built by another machine.