Meat and meat food products condemned on reinspection and destroyed, fiscal year

Materials other than meat rejected for use, fiscal year 1963

NOTE.-Materials rejected for use which are listed above were either removed from the establishments, returned to the supplier, destroyed by the establishments, or held for Food and Drug Administration, or other appropriate health authority depending upon the cause of rejection.

Meat and meat food products prepared and processed under supervision classified by

1 Represents inspection pounds. Some products may have been inspected and recorded more than once due to their having been subjected to more than 1 processing treatment, such as curing, smoking, and slicing.

Represents poundage of the total number of animals slaughtered used for boning and further processing into meat food products.

Examination of meat and meat food products for other Government agencies

(reimbursable)

Quantity of meat and meat food products, inedible products, and casings certified

Foreign meat and meat food products passed for entry and refused entry and/or condemned, fiscal year 1963

Mr. WHITTEN. I don't know of any further questions that I have at this time, Dr. Clarkson.

Congressman Addabbo?

1965 BUDGET INCREASES

Mr. ADDABBO. Dr. Clarkson, on meat inspection, you have the 1965 estimate at $30,837,000 which is approximately $2,941,000 over and above the 1964 figure.

About how much more is expected actually for meat inspection? Dr. CLARKSON. This would be the available funds for fiscal year 1965 ?

Mr. ADDABBO. For 1965. Does that take in any of this other part on the quarantines?

Dr. CLARKSON. No.

Mr. ADDABBO. Strictly for meat inspection phase of it?

Dr. CLARKSON. Yes.

Mr. ADDABBO. And the additional employees, namely inspectors, where would they be obtained from?

Dr. CLARKSON. We have two classes of meat inspectors. One class is the veterinary inspector. They are either recent graduates or veterinarians available from other sources-maybe from private practice-which is where we recruit most of them.

The others, and by far the larger number, are nonprofessional employees. There are a good many of them available on the Civil Service registers. They come from two general sources: From farms and from the labor force in slaughtering and processing plants.

Mr. ADDABBO. How will these additional employees be figured into the general plan of cutback? Will there be cutbacks in other departments to make room for this addition?

Dr. CLARKSON. If we have to live under the personnel ceiling that Dr. Shaw mentioned yesterday, which is 184 less for the Agricultural Research Service than we have this year, then we have no other alternative but to put people on in one place and take them off somewhere else.

Mr. ADDABBO. So taking men off other positions, wouldn't that cut back some of the money that would be needed in other research programs or would it necessarily have to come out of research programs?

Dr. CLARKSON. The cutback wouldn't necessarily have to come out of research programs. Where personnel are reduced, the program would have to be handled either by making contracts or grants with somebody else to do it, or to cut back the service.

Mr. GRANT. Mr. Addabbo, may I say that we have an employment ceiling for the Department as a whole. We have tried to allocate it within the Department on an equitable basis. However, if there is a need in one agency, we can make a shift within our total ceiling from another agency where later developments make it feasible.

Mr. ADDABBO. Of this $2,944,000, is any part of that for the Federal pay increase?

Dr. CLARKSON. Yes; $697,000 is for the pay increase.

Mr. ADDABBO. Also on plant and animal disease and pest control, there we show an increase over last year of $1,637,000.

Will this need any additional manpower or is this strictly for contract work?

Dr. CLARKSON. It will take additional manpower. It will require employment of people for the plant and animal quarantine work; the additional pesticides regulation activities, and veterinary biologics inspection work.

Mr. ADDABBO. Is there an overage or lack of manpower?

Mr. STEPHENS. Only a few additional people.

Mr. ADDABBO. How much of this $1.6 million would be
Mr. GRANT. $937,000.

pay raise!

Mr. ADDABBO. That is on this plant, animal disease, and pest control? Dr. CLARKSON. And $700,000 for program work.

Mr. ADDABBO. On research itself, there is an additional amount over 1964 asked of $7,223,300. How much of that is the Federal pay increase?

Mr. STEPHENS. $1,343,000.

Mr. ADDABBO. Which would give us approximately $6 million for additional research work.

Mr. STEPHENS. Including $2,394,300 for construction.

Mr. ADDABBO. That bill was passed in the last Congress.

Mr. GRANT. The $2,394,300 does not cover the items included in the last appropriation bill. It covers additional items that are proposed for 1965.

Mr. ADDABBO. Has there been authorization for them?

Mr. GRANT. No specific authorization is necessary. The Organic Act of 1944 gives the Department authority to construct buildings to the extent that provision is made for them in the annual appropriation act.

Mr. ADDABBO. These buildings wouldn't be completed within the 1965-66 budget period, would they?

Mr. GRANT. No; they probably won't be completed in 1965.

Mr. ADDABBO. If we need any additional manpower, that would come in the next budget?

Dr. SHAW. 1966 or later.

Mr. ADDABBO. That leaves us with another $4 million for research over and above the $1,300,000 for the pay act; $2 million for this new construction; $4 million additional for new research.

Are these entirely all the new programs, additional $4 million? Dr. SHAW. The proposed research increase includes $1.5 million for staffing of laboratories and watershed research centers that have been authorized in recent years, and $1.5 was for expanded research to avoid or minimize hazards associated with the control of agricultural pests. Mr. ADDABBO. New program?

Dr. SHAW. This would be an expansion over what we have. Then, $500,000 is for research at our Plum Island, N. Y., laboratory; $250,000 is for research and $250,000 for improvements to electrical and water supply.

PROGRAM PRIORITIES

Mr. ADDABBO. Let me ask this, Dr. Shaw. Speaking of cutbacks and reductions, we have in just your part of the agriculture research program an additional $11,801,000. If this additional money is not allocated to your division, what will be affected?

Dr. SHAW. Concerning the one that Dr. Clarkson has just been talking about, on meat inspection, we are required by law to put the inspectors in these plants when they want to ship meat interstate.