82 



National Resources Committee 



of flexibility. A fund used solely for research flexi- 

 bility would, in only exceptional cases, increase the 

 total expenditures of the agency for research purposes, 

 since amounts spent from the fund to supplement ap- 

 propriations for one object would be counterbalanced 

 by savings in the amounts designated for purposes that 

 would not prove to be of pressing importance. A 

 sj^ecial research fund might, however, be used to take 

 care of snuill increases in the amounts known in ad- 

 vance to be needed for particular research projects. 



The history of appropriations for "contingent ex- 

 penses" in the Federal Government indicates that there 

 is another possible limitation on the special research 

 fund method as a means of obtaining flexibility. Ap- 

 propriations for "contingent expenses" have now be- 

 come misnomers in nearly every case. Usually such 

 appropriations are used only for routine purchase of 

 supplies and materials and for other routine expenses 

 clearly understood within the agency as well as by the 

 Bureau of the Budget and the congi'essional appropri- 

 ation committees. Sometimes the uses are even writ- 

 ten into the language of the appropriation paragraph. 

 There is little that could be called "contingent" in 

 such expenditures. By analogy, it seems not impossi- 

 ble that a special research fund may be allowed or 

 forced to become regularly and wholly allocated to 

 some sjiecific continuing purpose for which appropria- 

 tions are not otherwise provided. 



Hence, flexibility for a research program through a 

 special fund has latent limitations as well as obvious 

 present advantages. Even though use of such a fund 

 proves wholly successful when given its first trial by 

 the Department of Agriculture, the results may not 

 justify wholesale imitation, as the Department of 

 Agriculture has been notably successful in its long 

 experience with methods of financial and research 

 administration. 



Budgetary Information and Procedure 



Comprehensive information on a uniform basis 

 should be available to the public about the expendi- 

 tures for each activity of the Government. At the 

 present time some agencies give little or no informa- 

 tion about their research expenditures to the Bureau 

 of the Budget or to congressional appropriation com- 

 mittees, so that practically nothing is available in pub- 

 lished form. Other bureaus give information in rather 

 comprehensive detail. While research men engrossed 

 in their work may feel somewhat irritated by having 

 to prepare information in the exact form and detail 

 specified by a uniform regulation, nevertheless an 

 agency or activity supported from public funds raised 

 by taxation has the obligation to show exactly what its 

 financial program is. The complaint is sometimes 



heard from scientific agencies that regulations for 

 budgetary procedures are too exacting and divert too 

 much time that should be spent on research. Employ- 

 ment of assistance to prepare under general supervision 

 the forms required seems to be the most usual method 

 of mitigating this difficulty. 



The 12-month interval usually elapsing between 

 preparation of Budget estimates for each fiscal year 

 and the beginning of the fiscal year planned for is a 

 necessary evil under present good budgetary practices. 

 Conceivably, the period might be shortened at some 

 time in the future after more rapid reporting and ac- 

 counting methods have been perfected. The present 

 system, however, does not inconvenience research agen- 

 cies more than other Government agencies. Since 

 budgetary control is one of the essentials of good gov- 

 ernment in a democracy, a Government organization 

 cannot expect to carry on research without the ordinary 

 inconveniences of such control. The Government pro- 

 cedures for effecting usefulness of results, efficiency, 

 speed, thoroughness, and legislative and accounting 

 control are necessarily somewhat inconsistent. Each 

 of these legitimate interests limits the others to some 

 extent. 



The Budget of the United States does not at present 

 contain analytical summaries except by agency, object 

 of expenditure, and to some extent by broad govern- 

 mental programs. The detailed paragraphs are still 

 far from uniform in scope, content, and informational 

 usefulness, in spite of continuing improvement. Wliile 

 a single appropriation paragraph may cover all the 

 functions of a large independent agency, some rela- 

 tively small bureaus still receive funds from scores of 

 separate appropriations. Salaries are sometimes segre- 

 gated in a paragraph by themselves. Printing, travel- 

 ing, and library expenses may be included in amounts 

 for a particular function of a bureau, or a separate 

 paragraph may concentrate such allowances for the 

 bureau as a whole, or even for the entire department. 

 Though objections have been raised in Congressional 

 appropriation committees to the rearrangement or con- 

 solidation of several artificially separated appropria- 

 tion programs into a more logical and easily under- 

 stood presentation, such a consolidation would have 

 advantages for control as well as for information, 

 especially when supplemented by comprehensive ana- 

 lytical summaries. 



'Wliile the Bureau of the Budget is not free under 

 the law to make any changes it wishes, it could never- 

 theless, if it had the available time and persoimel, pre- 

 sent informational summaries that would make the 

 Budget document of more use to the general inquirer. 

 It could propose to the Congress the elimination of 

 most of the inconsistencies that remain in the Budget 



