« 
The 
Federal 
Diary \ 
By \ 
Jerry 
' 
Kluttz 
House Unit Reveals 
Intent to Hold Down 
U. S. Personnel Level 
The House Appropriations Com¬ 
mittee hopes to hold down per¬ 
sonnel in the old-line agencies 
during the 1952 fiscal year to 
their present level. 
That policy became clear in 
committee approval of its first 
major money bill of 1951 for 
Treasury and Post Office. The jl 
committee admitted that the work 
of both departments had been in¬ 
creased by defense-related duties. 
Nevertheless, nearly every request 
for additional employes was either 
denied or cut back sharply. 
For example, Post Office was 
given a cut of more than 25 mil¬ 
lions. If it stands, it won’t be able 
to hire more than 5000 additional 
employes it had planned. Internal 
Revenue was cut back $3,500,000 
which means it won’t be able to 
hire additional new employed 
after June 30. ji 
Furthermore, the committee I 
pounded away at more efficiency, I 
better use of available personnel, I 
and so forth. No one can object 
to that point of view. 
For example, the Post Office 
was lectured for failing to “inject 
leadership and enthusiasm into 
the department’s lagging employe 
suggestion program.” Percent¬ 
agewise, the committee said Post 
Office had received fewer sugges- 
lions and had paid out the small- 
est cash awards to employes of 
any' department. 
.Specifically, the committee said 
it ^was “very disappointed” be- 
cause the department had failed | 
to make any award to John Sestak, j 
a Chicago employe, who designed 
and nonstruetod an effective mail- j 
sorting machine. Its failure to do [ 
bo, the committee reported, “does | 
not encourage other employes in j 
the postal service to submit ideas 
for improvements.” 
At another point in its report 
the*_pommittee accused the depart¬ 
ment of dragging its feet on the 
installation of modem* mechanical 
equipment in large city post of¬ 
fices. It urged the department to 
extend the system of sorting in¬ 
coming mail which was developed I 
at Dallas, Texas. I 
The committee failed to add I 
funds to restore mail service which I 
was cut back at the committee’s I 
direction a year ago. It was told I 
that 70 million dollars would be I 
needed for that purpose. The cut I 
made by the committee could lead I 
to curtailing still other postal I 
services. Funds to hire 200 addi- I 
lions! postal inspectors also were | 
denied by the committee. | 
Treasury’s Customs Bureau had I 
Its budget for personnel here cut 1 
by $70,000 because the committee j 
felt there was overstaffing in sev- J 
eral of its offices. The committee j 
also denied all requests for funds I 
to hire additional employes in I 
fiscal 1952. It approved funds to I 
continue 207 new people being I 
hired this year, I 
The committee made a small cut I 
In the budget for the Disburse- 1 
ment Division and concluded that I 
“the peak of efficiency in this di- I 
vision has not been reached in I 
spite of the progress that has been I 
made,” Again, the committee I 
urged that this agency make I 
greater use of electronic and I 
mechanical equipment and more I 
improved work methods. I 
In cutting Revenue $3,500,000,1 
the committee knocked out its 1 
plans to hire additional employes j 
during the 1952 fiscal vear. It I 
accused Revenue of trying to avoid I 
appropriation cuts made late last I 
year by Congress. Revenue had I 
requested funds to hire 2503 new I 
people to handle new duties un-| 
der the broadened Social Security I 
Act, Its request was cut a third I 
by Congress, but the committee I 
said the agency planned to hire I 
all the people it originally re- 1 
quested nevertheless. I 
Coast Guard escaped the wrath I 
of the committee for the first time I 
in several years. Its budget was I 
cut only a million dollars. The I 
ageycy was commended for in- 1 
stituting two studies: (1) to re- 1 
classify military and civilian jobs j| 
and*i© improve its personnel man- j 
ugement, and (2) to improve the 
management and industrial ac-, 
tivities of the Coast Guard yard, j 
