INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT Mr. THOMAS. Gentlemen, will the committee please come to order? We shall now take up the items contained in House Documents Nos. 61, 63, and 82. (NOTE.-Items contained in House Document No. 89 were considered subsequently.) We have the privilege and pleasure of having as our first guests our able and distinguished friends from the Department of Agriculture, who will appear on behalf of the Extension Service, Statistical Reporting Service, Stabilization and Conservation Service, Farmers Home Administration, Office of Information, and the Forest Service. Mr. Whitten and Mr. Horan are with us. We welcome them. We welcome the people from the Department of Agriculture. We are certainly delighted and honored to have Mr. Schruben, Assistant Administrator of the Extension Service. Welcome aboard. You have a lot of fine, able, and distinguished people with you. Mr. Whitten, will you be good enough to lead the discussion for us and preside on these agricultural items? Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I say that we appreciate the invitation to appear, since we deal with the Department in its usual activities. We are glad to cooperate in any way that we can. Having worked with all of you as long as we have, Mr. Horan and I have a high regard for the efforts made by this committee and its membership, not only here but elsewhere. Turning now to the Department of Agriculture, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that the various justifications and documents connected with agriculture be included in the record at the appropriate place; if you will see to that, Mr. Grant? Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. I believe the best way to handle this, Mr. Chairman, would be to deal first with Mr. Grant as budget officer, so that we might somewhat divide these requests into two or three different categories. First, Mr. Grant, what part of this is for postal pay by departments or agencies and what part is for salary increases? I think those are two items under the general policy of the Congress that we must meet one way or another. You might also differentiate between what part is being absorbed and what part you are requesting. Do that for the various agencies who have requests pending before the committee. PAY ACT COSTS Mr. THOMAS. May I interrupt you? I noticed in your justifications and we devoted quite a bit of time to these justifications-you set out that part of your supplemental for pay increase for 1963. Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Reporter, include pages 1 and 2 of the justification under the Pay Act. (The pages follow:) PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, TRANSFER AUTHORIZATIONS, AND LIMITATION ADJUSTMENTS TO MEET INCREASED PAY COSTS, 1963 [H. Doc. 63] Request: $6,255,800 appropriation, $6,072,750 transfer authorizations, and $195,000 increase in limitations. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS AND TRANSFER AUTHORIZATIONS The estimated cost of Pay Act increases under Public Law 87-793 for the Department of Agriculture in fiscal year 1963 is $28,056,019. It is proposed to meet $18,000,219 of these costs from funds presently available to the Department with the balance of $10,055,800 to be provided by supplemental appropriations. Of the $18 million to be met from existing funds $10,384,969 can be absorbed within funds now available to agencies of the Department with the additional absorption of $7,615,250 requiring authorization to transfer funds within the Department. The proposed supplemental appropriations of $10,055,800 for increased pay costs are contained in House Documents Nos. 61 and 63 submitted on February 7 and 11, 1963, respectively. Total pay costs, absorptions, proposed transfers, and supplemental appropriations for the agencies included in each document are shown in the following tabulation: 1 Requires increase of $195,000 in limitation on amount of premium income that may be used for administrative expenses. ABSORPTION OF PAY ACT COSTS Mr. THOMAS. You are using the pay increase as a base in your regular 1964 estimates. We are not concerned with that in this subcommittee. We want to adopt as a policy very careful scrutiny on all supplementals. Practically every agency in the Government is to be included in this bill. You have 3 full months to go in fiscal year 1963—all of April, all of May, and all of June. We know from long experience that the turnover in Government service will average out, department by department, between 16 and 17 percent per year for all reasons-death, resignation, transfer, et cetera. We shall go carefully into everybody's request and require as a minimum a 5-percent reduction in your supplemental request for pay increases and we hope that you can make it even larger than 5 percent. We do not want you to fill some vacancies and we do not want you to fire anybody. We do not want you to cut down on any of your activities. We want you to be very careful. Go ahead. Thank you, sir. There are certain items in the Department where the postal costs are such that they could not be absorbed without detriment to the program. On a full-year basis for the items concerned, this would amount to $726,500, but for the fiscal year 1963 the supplemental estimates are $358,100, all of which is proposed to be transferred from other appropriations. Mr. WHITTEN. That is your estimate as to the part you cannot absorb, the postal costs as separate from the pay costs. Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. For the pay act increases, how much would that total for the fiscal year 1963, and how much are you absorbing under the proposal? My questions were merely to make the record and does not indicate the attitude of the committee. Mr. GRANT. Total pay act costs in 1963 for the Department of Agriculture under all funds is $28,056,019, and of that we are absorbing within available funds, including the requested transfers, $18,000,219, resulting in supplemental appropriations requested of $10,055,800. Mr. WHITTEN. That in total is what you are including in your request here? Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. In the table would you break it down so that we might have the various amounts by agency? Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir: I have a table on that. Mr. WHITTEN. You treat them all alike so far as absorption and so far as the amount requested? In other words, have you taken your $18 million absorption and spread it equally through the Department or have you applied it to some and left others where they depended entirely upon the appropriation? Mr. GRANT. No. Mr. Chairman. It has not been handled uniformly. Mr. WHITTEN. Why? Mr. GRANT. There are some items where, for instance, the activity is financed in part from fees and the cost can be absorbed by increasing the fees. In some cases it involves items where transfers are proposed from other appropriations. In some instances, increases are proposed in limitations, but the cost would still be absorbed within the appropriation. Then we reviewed the Department's appropriations to determine where there were balances which were not planned for use during the year, and are proposing to transfer such balances to other appropriations to meet the increased salary costs. Mr. WHITTEN. What is the rule within the Department so far as transferability? What is the percentage and what are the limitations as to transferability? If I recall correctly, within a broad category you can transfer up to 7 percent within the items in a bureau or agency. But you cannot transfer, say, from Agricultural Research or Marketing Research to Soil Conservation Service. Am I right about that? Mr. GRANT. That is right. We can transfer under the 7-percent. authority between appropriation items within the same bureau or agency, but we cannot cross agency lines. However, I want to point out that the transfers proposed in these supplemental estimates involve action by the Congress. Mr. WHITTEN. So if this subcommittee should authorize transfers beyond that which you normally have, there is no reason why you should not treat all agencies alike insofar as what they absorb and insofar as what they depend on for appropriations. I am asking you why each agency in the Department should not have it pro rata share of the absorption and its pro rata share of dependence upon additional appropriation. Mr. GRANT. It could be done that way. Mr. WHITTEN. You have heard the chairman announce what the policy of the subcommittee is. In view of that announcement could you go over these figures and see that each of the agencies accepts its part of the absorption in case you should not get additional funds to make up the difference? Mr. GRANT. Yes, this could be done and if I understand you it would mean redistributing the transfers proposed so that each agency would get a pro rata portion of the transfer? Mr. WHITTEN. I do not mean to belabor the issue before my colleagues, who have been nice enough to ask us down here to develop this, but it is my experience in Congress that cuts such as we are discussing now are usually applied to those plans where the Congress would be likely to restore them. If there should be a policy by the Congress requiring each agency to absorb a certain amount. all of these agencies being important to those who rely upon them, it would be beneficial to the committee and the Congress in trying to fix the sums on a reasonable basis. I am asking you, could you go back over this and rework it? Mr. WHITTEN. So you will provide what you could in the transfer of funds from various other amounts. Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. (The information requested follows:) |