You will recall distinctly, when the President vetoed our public works bill, you made the motion that carried the bill back to the floor, which was then passed, and the veto was overriden. In that particular bill was a project, Walt, which is assisting us today in Kentucky in placing on our rivers between 7 and 10 millions tons of coal in addition to the coal that was on the rivers prior to that bill. That was the Barren River Reservoir. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. WHITTEN. I appreciate the statement of my colleague. We are all very proud of the outcome of overriding the President's veto and saving about 69 projects. Mr. Addabbo? FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO LAND-USE AND WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH BY OTHER AGENCIES Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Koffsky, on page 5 you say the increase of funds will be used in two areas of research. Have these two areas of research been touched on by the Agricultural Research Service or the Soil Conservation Service? Have any other agencies been working on these two problems, or started work on them? Mr. STEELE. The conservation needs inventory was recently completed. It was a Department of Agriculture study. The Soil Conservation Service had the leadership of it and they did the field surveys on the samples we saw on chart 3. The Department has prepared and published two reports and a third one is in progress. They worked up these reports on the basis of classification of the soil as to land-use capabilities, erosion ocntrol, and management. The productivity classifications we propose involve a different grouping of these soil sample data. We have to go back to the original sample data and reanalyze them. In doing this we would work with the Soil Conservation Service, State colleges, and others. We would group the soils according to their productivity, response to technology, and to various other inputs. With these productivity groups we can indicate the crops that can be grown on each soil group, the yield that may be expected, and how much production costs will be, on an average. Then from these data we can then arrive at our productivity estimates. We would work cooperatively with Soil Conservation Service and State college technicians in order to do this. Mr. ADDABBO. Would you be able, at this time, when we are trying to save where possible, to try and divert some of our other areas of research under your Department or some other department, to try to find funds to accomplish the same things, since two-thirds of it has been done and you just have to go back, review some of it, and bring it up to a third feature? Mr. KOFFSKY. You see in this budget statement, Mr. Addabbo, that we did review our work in terms of trying to find funds for what we considered items of higher priority. We are asking for a reduction in marketing funds which we would then use for some other things, particularily in the farm income statistics, and also in looking at the potential foreign outlets for U.S. farm products. But, by the same token, this is about all that we can absorb by internal shifts this year. We do have to come in and ask for an increase for this particular item on land-use research. Mr. ADDABBO. In foreign economic analysis, are dollars or Public Law 480 funds used? Mr. KOFFSKY. The items that we are asking for in our budget are dollars. Mr. ADDABBO. Will these dollars be spent here or abroad? Mr. KOFFSKY. Here. FLOOR FOR PRICE-SPREAD STUDIES Mr. ADDABBO. In the budget you have requested, "provided that not less than $350,000 should be spent." Is this schedule set up by law or is this a budget request? Mr. KIEFER. By law. Mr. KAMINSKI. That was inserted by the committee some years back. This is a part of the appropriation language in the law. Mr. ADDABBO. Is it a continuing appropriation? Mr. KAMINSKI. It must be passed every year. That is for the cost and margin report we have discussed which falls within the area that the chairman has been inquiring about. Mr. GRANT. Congressman, this will depend on what the committee wants to do. This language that you have before you is just a continuation of the last year's proviso which had been inserted by the committee a number of years ago. Whether or not it is enacted next year is up to this committee to decide. Mr. ADDABBO. And we could provide not to exceed $75,000 of the appropriation shall be available, et cetera, of section 706-a? Mr. GRANT. Yes. Mr. ADDABBO. What happens if you need more than the amount you have here? Mr. KOFFSKY. This is in the regular appropriation. Mr. ADDABBO. Are you figuring on that amount? Mr. GRANT. You say what would happen if we need to use more? Mr. ADDABBO. Yes. Mr. GRANT. We adjust the total program in such a way as to use the funds most effectively for the things that need to be done. As long as we use at least the amount specified for this purpose, there is no problem. But if we want to use less than the $350,000, then we cannot use the amount remaining for anything else. In other words, if we do not use it for this purpose, we can't use it at all. PERSONNEL COMPENSATION Mr. ADDABBO. On page 40, you have personnel compensation, and then you have 1962-63 statement, and 1964 statement. It appears to be an increase of $1,600,000 from 1962 actual to 1964 statement. Then in the personnel summary below that, there appears to be a reduction of 55. Is this dollars? Mr. KAMINSKI. No, sir; numbers of permanent positions. Mr. KAMINSKI. This Service was reorganized in May 1961. At that time positions from three different agencies were moved into the Economic Research Service. As a result of that, a really close scrutiny of these positions was made. It was determined that a number of these positions for which funds were not available would no longer be carried. So as a result this 1,315 that you see in 1962 has been reduced down to the 1,201 positions which were necessary to do an effective job in ERS in 1963. Mr. ADDABBO. And next year you would need over this year, an increase by 59? Mr. KAMINSKI. There was a pay increase passed last October. Essentially some of these dollars of increase that you see for personnel services are as a direct result of that law. Mr. ADDABBO. Can you give us a breakdown of the increases, and what it is for. Mr. KAMINSKI. The net figure over the 2-year period-yes, I can give you what it is for. The total pay cost would be about $680,000, most of which would apply against the $1,600,000 difference you mentioned earlier. The balance would be due to the increase in the budget and to a shift from contract to inhouse research, sir. Mr. ADDABBO. In other words, you have personnel compensation. Over last year it looks like a large increase. Would that be due to a pay increase? Mr. KAMINSKI. Yes, about $350,000 pay increase, plus now the additional folks who are absorbed with the increase that we have included. Mr. ADDABBO. I still can't assimilate these two figures of 1962 to 1964. In other words, 1962, your personnel compensation was $6,372,000. Correct? Mr. KAMINSKI. For permanent positions, yes. Mr. ADDABBO. Your 1964 statement is $7,978,000, an increase of $1,600,000. Mr. KAMINSKI. This is true. However, we have had an increase in man-years or actual time worked over the 2-year period. This is reflected in these numbers. Mr. ABDABBO. Where is that increase in employment shown? I am looking at the total number of permanent positions in the personnel summary where you show reductions of 55. Mr. KAMINSKI. The number of permanent positions is not really indicative. What you want to look at, sir, is the average number of all employees. You will find that this is the effective utilization of people. You will find that goes from 898 to 1,004 an increase of 106 manyears. You see positions are not really indicative because you may have positions that may be filled for a part of the year or for a very short period of time; which are not contemplated to be filled on a 12month basis. Therefore it is entirely possible that one employee can serve in two or more positions in a given period and accordingly inflating the position count. Mr. GRANT. Mr. Addabbo, I am not sure that you have the answer you want. You are looking for an explanation of the increase of $1,600,000 from 1962 to 1964? Mr. ADDABBO. Yes. Mr. GRANT. There is a total increase from 1962 to 1963 of $349,000 for pay act and postal costs arising out of the pay bill enacted last year. There is an additional $348,000 in pay and postal costs on base funds in fiscal year 1964, compared with the revised total for 1963. That comes to about $700,000 the bulk of which applies to this difference of $1,600,000. And then there are program increases proposed in the budget as set forth in the justifications on page 4, volume 2, a number of which involve this difference. This is not a complete analysis of your question, but we could put a complete analysis in the record which would account for each element of this difference. This budget explains primarily the difference between 1964 and 1963. Part of your question goes back to a detailed breakdown of the difference between 1962 and 1963. Mr. ADDABBO. Could we possibly have that for the record? (The information requested follows:) Increased personnel compensation for permanent positions, 1962-64 Estimated costs 1964_. Actual costs 1962- Estimated increase_-. Increased pay costs in 1963 and 1964 due to Public Law 87-793--- Total, estimated increase___. $7,978, 000 6,372, 000 1,606, 000 1630,000 578,000 398,000 1,606, 000 1 Represents that portion of the total of $709,000 for increased pay costs applicable to personnel compensation for permanent positions. WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT Mr. ADDABBO. In the budget on page 41 you show "Watershed protection, $131,000." When we had the Agricultural Research Service before this subcommittee, they were asking for money for watershed research; then we had Soil Conservation also asking for watershed funds. Is there any duplication? Mr. GRANT. The $131,000 represents reimbursements from agencies outside the Department. These reimbursements are made to ERS because ERS has certain responsibilities under watershed protection. This agency also receives an allotment from the "Watershed protection" appropriation. May I explain how this works? You ran into it yesterday when the Soil Conservation Service was here. That appropriation for watershed protection is a departmental appropriation, as Mr. Williams explained. Therefore, it is made under the heading of "Soil Conservation Service," but it is to carry out many activities in the Department. And so some of those funds are allotted to the Forest Service, some to the Agricultural Research Service and some to the Economic Research Service-to mention a few of the agencies involved. To the extent that they do this work, that is a part of the entire program. This is not a matter of duplication. It is their part of the total program. Mr. ADDABBO. Does it show up at all in the $10 million requested for this agency? Mr. GRANT. No, it does not. It is simply a statement of the funds which they receive in addition to the appropriation that is being requested here. It is the amount they are allotted from the appropriation for watershed protection. This is also true of a number of other appropriations which carry out a departmental function. For convenience they are presented by one agency, but the funds are allotted to more than one agency. Flood prevention is another example of such an appropriation. Mr. ADDABBO. Thank you. BENEFITS OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH TO THE CONSUMER Can you give me a short statement of how all this $10 million will directly benefit the consumers? Mr. KOFFSKY. Yes, sir; we can furnish that. Mr. ADDABBO. May I have a copy of that? Mr. KOFFSKY. Yes, sir. We will put it in the record and send you a copy. Mr. ADDABBO. Thank you very much. (The information requested follows:) ECONOMIC RESEARCH OF DIRECT BENEFIT TO CONSUMERS All of our economic research is designed to benefit directly or indirectly agricultural producers, but much of it is of benefit to consumers as well. The Agricultural Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee made the following statement in its report of January 29, 1962: "If farmers were now using the seed, fertilizers, machinery, and production techniques of even two decades ago, it would cost an additional $13 billion or fully one-third more to produce the products we now consume and the cost to the consumer would be much greater." The Panel attributed this “largely to the application of the results of science to the production problems of the industry." "Science" in this context includes economic as well as physical science and engineering research. Too few realize how much our efficient agriculture, built upon research, benefits us personally as consumers and makes possible our amazingly high standard of living. Our urban industrial economy could never have been achieved without the modernization of production, processing, and distribution of farm products. Research on economics of farm production guides farmers in improving their net incomes by developing improved business and management practices that help reduce their costs of producing food and fiber, which in turn is reflected in lower prices paid by consumers. Research on land and water requirements and optimum uses, as well as economic development of river basins and rural areas, contributes both to the effectiveness of agriculture as an industry and to the intelligent use of resources for urban, industrial, and recreational purposes in a period of rapid population growth. Land and water resources are of particular significance because of their extensive use for direct consumption purposes, such as homesites, domestic water supply, and recreation. The Economic Research Service produces a large volume of statistics and related analyses used by persons working directly with consumers or on consumer problems. Official estimates are made of the per capita consumption of the prin |