Marketing research and service appropriations changes 1955–63—Continued Other changes-Continued Change in method of financing the classing of cotton and grad- Employer contribution under the Federal Employee Health To reimburse the Federal employee compensation fund for Leasing costs transferred to GSA during the period 1955-63-To annualize in 1956 transfer to Office of Secretary made for part of 1955 for personnel investigations___. Net other change----- Grand total change, 1955-63-- Appropriation, 1963, adjusted. $2,813, 000 239, 300 2, 300 -376, 200 -3,600 +11, 467, 900 +26,729, 155 40, 964, 100 Mr. HORAN. You have construction, and that has been treated, I think, quite fully up to this point. PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS On payments to States and possessions, the appropriation for 1955 is $900,000. It was $1,424,000 last year. You're requesting the same this year? Mr. LENNARTSON. That is right. Mr. HORAN. Were those statutory increases? Mr. SMITH. Those were increases Mr. LENNARTSON. Appropriation increases. Mr. HORAN. We did that. Mr. SMITH. Oh, yes. You understand, Mr. Horan, this money is more than matched by the States themselves under this practice. Mr. HORAN. Put that in the record. Have you a table? Mr. SMITH. We can provide it. It must be matched 50-50, but they more than match it in terms of their activities. Mr. HORAN. I want that in the record. You understand, of course, it all comes out of the common purse. (The information referred to follows:) MATCHING FUND PROGRAM UNDER THE APPROPRIATION PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS Estimated expenditures by State from Federal and State matching funds, fiscal years 1961 and 1962 1 Expenditures from State funds are based on information available to AMS. However, discussion with State officials indicates that in many instances, these expenditures do not reflect fully the extent of overmatching by some of the States. SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM Mr. HORAN. School lunch program. We have been good to you through the years. We didn't slip very far. In 1958 we took out about $35,000. Your appropriation last year on school lunch programs was $125 million. Your request for this year is a $12 million increase to $137 million. AMS PERSONNEL INCREASES SINCE 1955 Your Agricultural Marketing Service, do you have the personnel figures for 1955? Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. Mr. HORAN. Do you have a table? Mr. GRANT. I have a table, yes. Mr. HORAN. Could you tell us what it was in 1955 ? Mr. GRANT. The total for the Agricultural Marketing Service was 5,169. Mr. HORAN. What is it this year, estimated? Mr. GRANT. 8,675. Mr. HORAN. What is your request for increased personnel? Mr. HORAN. That will bring it up to close to 9,000. Mr. GRANT. The 1963 estimate is 8,675. The 1964 budget is 8,697. Mr. HORAN. This may or may not, Mr. Chairman, have any relationship to the work they are doing. I just want to have these figures in the record. I don't ask these questions critically. Your explanations of the increase in funds will indicate where we, as Members of the Congress, come in on this responsibility, too. I am just a little worried myself. SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM This special milk program, that is an addition to other milk programs we have in the school lunch program proper, isn't it Mr. Davis? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. HORAN. The original was financed under section 32? Mr. DAVIS. No. Commodity Credit Corporation. Mr. HORAN. That is right. I knew that. But the law last year-the act of 1961 made it mandatory that it be a direct appropriation. Mr. DAVIS. Yes. The current year is the first fiscal year under a direct appropriation. SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM Mr. HORAN. School lunch, your estimate in 1955 was almost $68 million. It lacked about 600 or so. We actually gave you $83,235,442. We have already covered that. What is the increase in personnel required to administer the program as far as the Federal Government is concerned? Mr. HOLMAAS. In 1964 we are budgeting 204 people under this, and we had 205 in 1963. This represents a reduction of one. Mr. HORAN. Keep it up. Mr. DAVIS. With more lunches and more children. Mr. HORAN. That is all right. That is automation. You can't get away from it. REMOVAL OF SURPLUS AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES I would like to have some comment on the removal of surplus agricultural commodities or section 32. The appropriations as listed here have risen from $179,844,000 to $361,500,000, and then it dropped in 1956. Since that time there has been a pretty regular increase to the 1964 estimate of $361,500,000. Mr. LENNARTSON. Could I clarify this with respect to section 32? The figures reflected in the table you are referring to are the increments accruing to the Secretary as a result of 30 percent of the customs receipts which he may or may not spend. I think alongside of this, Mr. Horan, you probably want the figures indicating what was actually spent each year against this increment. Mr. HORAN. I am thinking of the common purse. Anything that gets in the American Treasury I am happy about. When I release it, that depreciates the common purse of the United States. Mr. WHITTEN. If he doesn't spend this a certain portion goes back to the Treasury. I thought I might like that alongside the incre PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES ACT FUND Mr. HORAN. Another that comes out of the common purse is the Administration of Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. That is license fees deposited in this special fund and used to meet costs of administrating the perishable Agricultural Commodities and the Produce Agency Act that are listed here. Public Law 87-725, enacted October 1, 1962, authorizing an increase in fees from $25 to $50 maximum, and you indicated in your testimony it would have to be increased, that $36. These funds exist, don't they? Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. HORAN. And they are part of your total legacy, aren't they? If we spend them they are gone, aren't they, and that depreciates the common purse still further? Mr. SMITH. Congressman Horan, I personally would draw this distinction that the funds that become available for the Administration of Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act are acquired through the levying of a license fee on licensees. So that those who are subject to the act and get the benefits from the act actually contribute the funds which are used in administration and enforcement of the act. In that respect, different than, we will say, a straight appropriation of public funds for the carrying out of a particular activity. Mr. HORAN. Could I ask Mr. Holmaas if that is deducted from the total appropriation you request of the subcommittee each year? Mr. HOLMAAS. We do not include this in the annual appropriation act. This has been set up by act of Congress as a special fund. The license fees go into it and come back out and are used for regulating the people who pay the license fees. ADVANCES AND REIMBURSEMENTS Mr. HORAN. Tell me something about advances and reimbursements that I am looking at at page 60. That requires a little explanation. It is fairly confusing, isn't it? Mr. GRANT. That schedule, Mr. Horan, includes the funds received by the Agricultural Marketing Service for various services they perform for others, in addition to the work that they perform under their own appropriation. It includes funds received from various sources for inspection, grading, and classing activities on a fee basis. All of the services they do for other Federal agencies, for private associations and individuais, and for non-Federal agencies are included. This is related to the question we were discussing yesterday concerning man-years for services of this nature. These funds are in addition to the appropriations, and they come to a large extent, from non-Federal sources, where private groups or individuals and States enter into agreements with the Agricultural Marketing Service for services which they buy from Agricultural Marketing Service. Mr. HORAN. I see here, on area redevelopment, you are requesting $37,000. Mr. GRANT. Yes. Mr. HORAN. What are we going to do with that? Mr. SMITH. Our Transportation and Facilities Research Division has been asked to make a market study in Puerto Rico similar to the ones we have been talking about that have been made for New York and some of these other cities. That is what the transfer involves, Mr. Horan. Mr. HORAN. That is for Puerto Rico, area redevelopment $37,000. This totals up to almost $3 million, doesn't it? Mr. GRANT. That is correct. Mr. HORAN. How much of that has resulted in increases in the demands upon the Marketing Service, these totals here? Mr. GRANT. All of it represents work which others have asked Agricultural Marketing Service to do because Agricultural Marketing Service has the particular abilities and skills to do the work. Mr. HORAN. I am not arguing with you. I want to know how much this increases the total that we are called upon to act on in behalf of the Agricultural Marketing Service, for which I have a very high regard. Mr. GRANT. It doesn't increase it at all. |