perishable commodities and complete them within 25 days. It is virtually certain that the Commission will have much work under two existing investigations-cotton and on tree nuts-and that a number of other investigations on new subjects will be called for.

You will note finally from the table on page II-2 that the Commission estimates no increase in work in 1953 over that in 1952 for any of the activities of the Commission other than those under the escape clause and under section 22. We have not estimated any increase in the man-years to be devoted to any of these activities notwithstanding the fact that in the current fiscal year work under practically every classification has been held to the very minimum and could not be further reduced without seriously impairing the Commission's ability to do the work required of it under each of the headings. This is particularly true of its work in general research and assembling basic data, in its work on tariff information summaries, in its work of assisting Congress, and of its work in assisting other Government. agencies, almost entirely defense agencies.

(5) The final point I should like to call special attention to is that the small increase the Commission is asking will be used entirely to fill vacancies in important positions on the Commission's staff, vacancies which because of lack of funds the Commission has had to leave unfilled. Unless the Commission is able to fill these vacancies, it will be unable to perform satisfactorily the urgent work it is required by law to do. Even if it is given funds to fill them, the Commission. will be able to meet only the more important and pressing of the demands upon its services. All indications are that it will be barely able to do that with the small increase in staff requested.

The reductions in staff during recent years have not yet had their full effect on the work of the Commission. Many of its most experienced employees have left the service on account of age or through transfer and many others are approaching retirement age. The Commission has not had the funds to fill the vacancies resulting from actual retirements and separations. Still less has it been able to employ junior experts to assist and understudy the men who are soon. to retire.

The Commission's personnel situation is well illustrated by what has happened to its group of commodity specialists, which numbered nearly 70 in former years, and has been curtailed successively to its present level of about 53. Since many thousands of commodities are covered by the tariff act, each specialist has had to cover a wide range at best. As the commodity staff has been reduced, each remaining specialist has had to handle an increasingly difficult burden of additional commodities. For example, the Commission has already lost this year specialists who handled such important commodities as raw wool, cattle, beef, poultry and eggs, sisal, hemp, jute, cordage, optical and other scientific instruments, certain iron and steel products, flat glass, certain lumber products, pulp, and certain paper products. These commodities have had to be assigned to other commodity specialists who were so overloaded that they already had difficulty in covering the wide range of commodities for which they were responsible. The effect of increasing the number of commodities covered by each commodity specialist becomes especially acute when, at the same time, a special investigation is called for with respect to two or more commodities handled by the same expert. For example, the

Commission has in progress "escape clause" investigations on tun and on groundfish fillets and its entire staff on the wide range fishery products consists of one senior and one junior expert. On expert in the Metals Division handles, among other products, moto cycles and bicycles each of which is the subject of an investigatio under the "escape clause" procedure.

That is a brief outline of the position we are in. It is a very difficu position. We ask serious consideration of it.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, you have made an excellent stat ment.

There are six Commissioners, are there not?

Mr. RYDER. That is right.

Mr. THOMAS. We have five of them with us this afternoon. I wis that you would refresh my recollection. Are the Commissioners ap pointed for a period of 6 years?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; one each year.

Mr. THOMAS. How long have you served on the Commission, Mi Chairman?

Mr. RYDER. I have been on the Commission since 1934. One o the Commissioners, Mr. Brossard, has been on since 1924 or 1925 Mr. Durand has been on since 1935 or 1936, and Commissioner Ed minster has been on since 1942 and Commissioner Gregg since 1946.

Mr. THOMAS. Who is the junior member of the Commission now Mr. RYDER. It depends upon how you count it. The two lates are Mr. McGill, former Senator from Kansas, who has been on the Commission since 1944, and Mr. Gregg.

PERSONAL SERVICES

Mr. THOMAS. For the fiscal year 1952 you had 201 employees, believe.

Mr. RYDER. That is the average.

Mr. THOMAS. And for the fiscal year 1953 you are requesting 214 at a cost of $1,319,000 as against 201 at $1,235,750 for 1952.

How many employees did you have on the rolls as of January 1? Mr. BENT. Two hundred even. The 201 is the average for the year. We will be down considerably below 200 at the end of the year. We are filling no vacancies.

Mr. THOMAS. I noticed in your justifications, that in order to maintain that average employment of 201, you used money from other objects to pay salaries.

Mr. RYDER. That is right.

Mr. BENT. You will recall in the Independent Offices Appropriations Act last year, I think section 605 was the provision that 2 percent of the total limitation could be transferred, and since we had been cut, as all others were cut, we saw no alternative but to do that. It amounted in our case to $21,850 that was transferred mainly from three accounts-printing, supplies, and equipment, which we just practically wiped out.

Mr. THOMAS. The 2 percent was intended as a little leeway there in personnel?

Mr. BENT. That is right, and that is what we availed ourselves of. Mr. THOMAS. The justification states that you used your money from other objects for personnel.

Mr. BENT. You mean back under the miscellaneous expense part of it?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. BENT. That is right. You see, I happen to have that provision before me here. Section 605 provides:

And provided further, That the amounts for personal services in those paragraphs where amounts for such personal services have been expressly limited in this Act may be exceeded by 2 percentum of said limitation on personal services if said 2 percentum is available from the total of any such appropriations, or authorization.

Well, the only other place where funds were available was in the miscellaneous objects.

Mr. RYDER. We did that in order to prevent a further reduction in our staff.

Mг. THOMAS. The purpose of all these limitations were to bring about just what you have not brought about-a reduction in staff.

Mr. RYDER. We have reduced our staff. We have reduced our staff by not filling vacancies and otherwise. We will be down from about 211, where we started the year to well below 200 at the end of the year, with the results that I have stated.

Mr. PHILLIPS. What is your total personnel as of this moment? Mr. BENT. 200 even.

Mr. RYDER. An even 200.

COMPARATIVE ACTIVITY TABLE

Mr. THOMAS. We will insert the table on page I-10 in the record at this point. It covers pretty well the picture. It shows your salary expense, travel, and other object expenses.

(The table referred to is as follows:)

TRAVEL

Mr. THOMAS. Was this travel item of $26,500 for 1952?

Mr. BENT. That is correct, sir.

Mr. THOMAS. As against $11,854 for 1951. Why the sizable increase? You have reduced it this year.

Mr. BENT. In the earlier months of this year we had to travel at a rate something like $2,500 per month, and there appeared to be every likelihood of that continuing throughout the year, so we requested a supplemental of $19,000, which I think you will recall, and which was passed with relation to that item of travel.

Mr. THOMAS. I remember that figure of $19,000.

Mr. BENT. That is right. Naturally, while that was pending we could not behave as though it were passed, so there was a period of some months in there when we just did not know if we were going to shut down the whole thing or not. However, it did pass, and we now have some heavy travel scheduled throughout the balance of the year. Mr. THOMAS. So, in not living up to the intent of the Congress in reducing personnel, you have spent your other objects money and have come back for an increase to offset it in supplies, materials, and so forth. Materials is up from $11,350 to $16,200. Your equipment is up from $500 to $5,500. There is no need of fussing about it, but you knew what you were doing.

Mr. RYDER. We just had to do it in order to do the work the Commission is required by law to do. We had to keep whatever staff we could and the result is we had to cut down other expenditures to the limit. That is all there was to it.

JUSTIFICATIONS OF ESTIMATES

Mr. THOMAS. I read your justification, Mr. Chairman, and you really are a good advocate.

Mr. RYDER. I am not only a good advocate, but the Commission has a good case.

Mr. THOMAS. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics in the Department of Agriculture is doing practically everything you are doing so far as agricultural products are concerned. The State Department is doing similar work, so you put your justification up as a "catch-all" for all Government agencies.

Mr. RYDER. No, sir. We are doing only the work we are required by law to do, which no one else is doing, or can do. They are not equipped to do it.

Mr. THOMAS. What do you mean by "not equipped to do it"? Mr. RYDER. They do not have the experience or the staff with the experience to do it.

Mr. THOMAS. Do you mean that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics does not do and is not equipped to do this same work?

Mr. RYDER. NO; they do not do the work that we do, and never have. The special work that we do on agricultural products is only that which comes to us under the escape clause and under section 22. Mr. THOMAS. In figuring that out you have to compute what a bushel of wheat costs, a pound of cotton costs, and what a cowhide

costs?

Mr. RYDER. No; we have not actually done that.