and there may be some adjustment of funds between States. In total for the country Mr. WHITTEN. What is the system behind this proposal you are talking about? Mr. GRANT. At the present time, under the $500,000 allotment from the Agricultural Marketing Act funds, the States submit specific research proposals which are reviewed in the Department by Dr. Byerly and his staff and after approval the money is paid out to a particular State. It is a little more costly to administer the financing of research projects under two funds. It is my understanding that the Cooperative State Research Service feels that this would be a more efficient way of handling the money. Mr. WHITTEN. In other words just turn them loose and let them have the money. Mr. GRANT. The Hatch Act requires that 20 percent of the payments to States be set aside for marketing research. This has been in addition to the money that is paid out under the Agricultural Marketing Act fund. Under both acts, the States must submit projects to the Cooperative State Research Service for review and approval before funds can be used for the work. Mr. WHITTEN. Did this originate with the Department, or did the land-grant college experiment stations ask for this? Or did Dr. Byerly get tired of looking at it? Mr. GRANT. I do not know whether or not the experiment station people have proposed this. Mr. WHITTEN. If we put that one back like it was, it wouldn't cost us any money. Is that what you are saying? Mr. GRANT. That is right. Mr. WHITTEN. I have the highest regard for the land-grant_college system, the State experiment stations, and all of that, but I never have felt that we had too much checking on projects to prevent duplication. Rather, I wondered sometimes if we didn't have too little. We would be interested in where the recommendation originated, if you could provide it. Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. (The information requested follows:) The Department requested a 1965 increase of $500,000 for CSRS grants under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act. The Budget Bureau allowance eliminated all funds for these grants. EXTENSION SERVICE Mr. GRANT. The next item is "Extension Service," a net reduction of $2,452,500. This involves a reduction of $2,590,000 in payments to States under the Smith-Lever Act. Mr. WHITTEN. Do land-grant colleges recommend that? Mr. GRANT. No, sir; they did not. There is also an increase of $137,500 for retirement and employees' compensation costs for extension agents. Mr. WHITTEN. What is the basis for this cut in the Extension Service; if you know? That was done by the Bureau of the Budget; was it not? Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir; based on a list of possible reductions submitted. by the Department. Mr. WHITTEN. What is the basis for that reduction? Mr. GRANT. As part of this overall effort to reduce expenditures, the Secretary indicated last week as a matter of judgment that a reduction might be made in the interest of holding down Federal expenditures, and the level here is roughly the same as that recommended in the 1964 budget. Mr. WHITTEN. What does Extension get? It would cut $2.4 million out of approximately $80 million? Mr. GRANT. That is right; in total. Mr. WHITTEN. That would figure then about 3 percent; wouldn't it? What would you and Mr. Robertson think if we applied that same formula across the board to Washington, from the Secretary's office on down; could you absorb it all right? Mr. GRANT. There would have to be some adjustments. Mr. WHITTEN. You would agree that it would be fair to treat you all alike; wouldn't you? Mr. GRANT. I think you need to look at individual items. Mr. WHITTEN. This is not looking at items; is it? After all, last year the Congress said, on the recommendations of the President, "we will raise salaries of all Federal employees." Some of the money carried in this bill is to pay it. So the Congress last year said, "Having raised all the other Federal employees, here are workers in the Extension field and we are going to raise this only enough to put the Federal share of their salareis on an equal basis with other Federal workers." In effect, are you vetoing the congressional act of last year? Mr. GRANT. The effect would be to eliminate the increase granted by Congress last year. Mr. WHITTEN. What did we say in the report that the increase was for? Mr. GRANT. Primarily for salary increases. Mr. WHITTEN. To make them comparable with what? Mr. GRANT. Comparable with the increases provided Federal employees. Mr. WHITTEN. That is right. So, if it is not good there, wouldn't it follow that we ought to do something on the other? Mr. GRANT. This would be a matter for determination by the Congress. Mr. WHITTEN. You might proceed, Mr. Grant. FARMER COOPERATIVE SERVICE Mr. GRANT. For the Farmer Cooperative Service there is an increase of $20,000. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSERVATION OPERATIONS For the Soil Conservation Service, there is a net reduction for conservation operations of $991,000. This consists of an increase of $300,000 for soil surveys, $53,000 for modernization of facilities at plant materials centers, and a decrease of $1,344,000 due to consolidation of some organizational units and other management improvements within the Soil Conservation Service. WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD PROTECTION There is an increase of $1,973,000 for watershed protection. This consists of $281,900 for installation of works of improvement, $2 million for additional loans, $740,100 for additional surveys and investigations in river basins, and a decrease of $1,025,000 in planning. Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Grant, I think this is one of the finest things that this country has ever done, giving attention to watershed protection and flood protection. We have gone into where it started many times. But the father of all of it is flood prevention for the 11 watersheds. Every year you come in here increasing the funds available for watershed protection. Why is it you cut the old man out every year and give all the increase to the boy? Every year the record shows how far behind you are lagging in the watershed and flood prevention areas. I happen to come from one, and happen to be able to prove that as a result of that knowledge, we promoted the watershed protection phase of it. Every year you come in here and cut down these programs in areas where they are lagging way, way behind, and then you increase the funds in the other half of it. Is that because you figure this committee will restore it? How does that happen? You are not getting even with us for something we did last year, are you? Mr. GRANT. Mr. Chairman, there is, of course, a great deal of interest in both of these items. I think that there has been some lag in the flood prevention program because of the time that is involved in getting the rights-of-way, the easements, and the cost-sharing arranged for. Some of these plans are quite old and they have to be reworked, as I understand it. Mr. WHITTEN. Do you operate them completely separate? Mr. WHITTEN. Is that due to the fact that they are in different sections of the country? Mr. GRANT. No. As a matter of fact, Congress passed a law here several years ago which requires that they be kept separate. But the planning, the overall planning for approval of the projects under Public Law 566 is financed under watershed protection. The detailed construction and operating plans are prepared for flood prevention under the item called "works of improvement," under watershed protection they are also prepared under the item "works of improvement" for that appropriation. The initial planning to determine whether or not the 566 projects should be carried out, and, if they are feasible, are financed under the activity referred to as "small watershed project planning." Mr. WHITTEN. You might proceed. Mr. GRANT. Under flood prevention there is a decrease in the appropriation of $2,921,000. CREAT PLAINS CONSERVATION PROGRAM For the Great Plains conservation program, there is an increase of $1,068,000, for additional cost sharing assistance and technical services. Mr. WHITTEN. What is the basis for this increase? Mr. GRANT. This is to provide for additional cost sharing assistance to farmers and ranchers throughout the 10 States of the Great Plains area, who are ready to proceed on adjustment of their land from crops to soil conserving practices to reduce erosion. Mr. WHITTEN. In this area, we pay about 80 percent of the cost, I believe. Mr. GRANT. For certain types of practices, yes. Mr. WHITTEN. A far greater percentage than is normally paid. Mr. GRANT. It is greater on the average than for practices under ACP. Mr. WHITTEN. You might proceed. RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT Mr. GRANT. In the next item the increase is $527,000 for resource conservation and development. This is the new program that we are just getting initiated in the fiscal year 1964. This is a net amount, consisting of a decrease of $281,000 for project investigations, and increases of $508,000 for project assistance, and $300,000 for loans. For the Economic Research Service, there is no change, except for pay act costs. Mr. WHITTEN. We will be interested in the resource conservation development item when the folks handling the program are before us. You say this project is for inspection or consideration of projects under this program? Mr. GRANT. Yes. Mr. WHITTEN. Are you familiar with the committee's investigation on the cropland conservation program and its findings? Mr. GRANT. Yes. Mr. WHITTEN. After reading that, you are convinced you had better check on these other projects; are you not? Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir; these will be gone into. We are preparing a statement for the committee on that report. Mr. WHITTEN. You might proceed. STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE Mr. GRANT. For the Statistical Reporting Service, there is an increase of $653,500. This involves an increase of $685,000 for the longrange crop and livestock estimates program, $62,500 for cattle-onfeed reports and a reduction of $94,000 in consumer surveys. AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE Agricultural Marketing Service, an increase of $764,025, for marketing research and service consisting of $200,000 for marketing research related to pesticides or insect control in stored products, $135,000 for market news leased wire services, $652,000 for an increased volume of poultry inspection, and $665,000 for reclassification of nonveterinarian poultry inspectors, and a reduction of $862,000 in marketing transportation and facilities research. Mr. WHITTEN. Who laid the finger on that fine work, Mr. Grant? We spend all this money on utilization research, and here we come in and cut out the one service which looks like it has shown some results, to me, back through the years. Mr. GRANT. It is a part of this overall effort to reduce expenditures. We thought this particular research might be the kind that could be financed by industry (wholesalers and retailers), rather than by the Federal Government. Mr. WHITTEN. Have you worked this agreement out yet? Mr. GRANT. No, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. Do you think you could get that worked out by the time we mark the bill up? Mr. GRANT. I doubt it, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. You might proceed. Mr. GRANT. In "Payments to States" for marketing service projects, there is an estimate of $1,425,000, a reduction of $75,000. This will provide the same amount available for this work in 1963. For the special milk program, the budget estimate is $99,831,000, to be provided by a transfer of funds from section 32, rather than by direct appropriation. USE OF SECTION 32 FUNDS Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Grant, you are thoroughly familiar with the fact that section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act provides that 30 percent of the import duties are available for certain specified uses, the primary one being to buy surpluses or to support perishable products. One of the chief means of supporting them is to buy up surpluses in order to strengthen the market. Many of those surpluses, in turn, go to school lunches. Through the years it has been proven many times that if you had sufficient funds in section 32 to say you are going to support the price and mean it, it is effective. Frequently you have to buy a few eggs, a few chickens, a little of this and a little of that, but you always had the capacity to strengthen the market and you saved money. When you pull out this additional $99 million-I agree that the Congress has regularly been financing a part of the school lunch through this means-where does that leave you insofar as your total ability to meet the normal demands of section 32 for price supports? Mr. GRANT. It does reduce, of course, the total funds available for that purpose. Mr. WHITTEN. Am I correct in my recollection, however, that you can carry forward only $300 million, so in any given year you have $300 million plus whatever the fund accumulates during that year? Mr. GRANT. That is right. |