Appropriation, 1963 and base for 1964 (from receipts). Increase in annual permanent appropriation (due to estimated increase in revenue). $728, 650 913, 000 +184, 350 NOTE. A total of $966,579 is estimated to be available for obligation in fiscal year 1964, including an unobligated balance of $53,579 to be carried forward from 1963. Of this total, the estimates tentatively forecast obligations of $922,000 for fiscal year 1964, leaving a carryover of $44,579 into fiscal year 1965. Project statement (on basis of available funds) 1 Represents obligations. Applied costs for 1962 are $736,557. The difference of $1,329 reflects primarily, excess of equipment received in 1962 over equipment ordered. Statement of obligations under allotments and other funds {Includes only those amounts which by Nov. 30, 1962, were actually received or programed for 1963 or 1964. Since work for other agencies is performed on a service basis at the request of those agencies and for their benefit, it is not practicable in all cases to estimate in advance the amounts to be received] 1 Pursuant to authority in the Agricultural Act of 1961, a direct appropriation of $105,000,000 was received for fiscal year 1963 and $102,000,000 is requested for fiscal year 1964 to carry out the special milk program. NOTE. In addition, foreign currencies are available under sec. 101(k) of Public Law 480 for marketing research projects abroad. This work is conducted by the Agricultural Research Service with the assistance of the Agricultural Marketing Service in the review and appraisal of marketing research projects undertaken abroad. The dollar expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service in connection with this work are paid from the appropriation "Marketing research and service." Mr. WHITTEN. We notice this work comes under the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Duncan. But, Mr. Smith, as Administrator, you will present the case for the Service. Mr. Smith, we are glad to have you and your associates with us. In case you have anyone who is new before the committee, we will be glad to have you introduce him and place a brief biographical sketch in the record. Also I wish to introduce our colleague, Mr. Joseph Addabbo of New York, who is with us on the committee. He is doing a fine job. By the time he gets to you and questions you, you will know who he is. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES Mr. SMITH. Yes, I will be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. I have three new individuals I would like to introduce, that haven't been up here before. Mr. George Grange, who is our Deputy for Marketing Services, Mr. Clarence Girard, our Deputy Administrator for regulatory programs, and Mr. George Goldsborough, who is available as an auxiliary witness on the matching fund program. My other associates here, I think, have appeared before you previously, sir. We are glad to be back. (The biographical sketches referred to follow :) GEORGE R. GRANGE He has worked as a career employee of USDA since 1939, except for 3 years of military service in World War II. A native of Maine, he received his B.S. degree in agricultural economics from the University of Maine, and he first worked as a program analyst on USDA distribution and maketing programs. In 1946 he entered the Fruit and Vegetable Division, and was in charge of analysis and development of potato marketing programs when named Assistant Director of the Division in 1951. In 1954 he was made Deputy Director and has since been responsible for directing and coordinating the administration of inspection, standardization, market news, regulatory and related activities for fruits and vegetables. He was appointed Deputy Administrator for Marketing Services on August 31, 1961. In this capacity he participates in overall program planning and is directly responsible for leadership and coordination of marketing services activities assigned to AMS. These include commodity grading, classing and inspection, commodity standards and grades, market news, and expansion of market outlets. His office also serves as the focal point in the Administrator's Office for clearing program aspects of cooperative agreements, and for relationships with States and other jurisdictions on these activities. CLARENCE H. GIRARD He is a U.S. Department of Agriculture career man with 21 years' experience in administration of the Department's regulatory programs. He joined USDA in 1941 as a trial attorney, handling proceedings and court cases involving regulatory matters, with time out for military duty during World War II. In 1948, he was advanced to Chief of the Marketing Division in USDA's Office of the General Counsel. In 1956, he was appointed a USDA hearing examiner. Following 5 years' duty in that role, he was named, in 1961, Director of the Packers and Stockyards Division in AMS. A native of Schenectady, N.Y., he attended public schools there, and then received a B.A. degree from Union College, majoring in economics and political science. Following graduate work at Syracuse University, he received an M.S. degree in public administration. He then attended Albany Law School, and was graduated cum laude wi h a LL.B. degree He was appointed Deputy Administrator, Regulatory Programs, effective November 28, 1962, filling the vacancy created by the death, October 14, of F. Richard Burke. In this capacity he participates in overall program planning and is directly responsible for leadership and coordination of the agency's many and varied regulatory services, including marketing agreements and orders and commodity procurement programs. GEORGE H. GOLDSBOROUGH George H. Goldsborough, a native of Denton, Md., is a 1939 graduate of Cornell University with the B.S. degree in agricultural economics. He took his M.S. degree at the University of Maryland the following year. He first worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the summer while still a student at college. He rejoined USDA shortly after graduation, and has served the Department continuously since that time. Following 31⁄2 years service in the Marine Corps during World War II, he was engaged from 1946 to 1954 in marketing research and service work in the Farmer Cooperative Service and then in the Production and Marketing Administration. For a year and a half, in 1954 and 1955, he served as a staff member in the matching fund program office which he now heads. He then became a section head of market development work in the Marketing Research Division of AMS, and later accepted a post as a member of the Product and Process Evaluation Staff of the Agricultural Research Service, from which assignment he was appointed to his present position as Director, matching fund program. Mr. WHITTEN. All right. You may proceed. GENERAL STATEMENT Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee to discuss the 1964 budget for the various activities of the Agricultural Marketing Service. First, I would like to present a few brief facts about AMS activities as a background and basis for our budget proposals. FIFTY YEARS OF MARKETING WORK IN THE DEPARTMENT This year marks the golden anniversary of the formal establishment of marketing work in the Department of Agriculture. It was 50 years ago on May 16, 1913-that the Secretary of Agriculture created the Office of Markets in the Department. Its purpose was to carry out the direction of Congress "to acquire and diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with the marketing and distribution of farm products.' The 1913 action of the Congress and of the Secretary was in keeping with the Nation's forward progress. The traditional pattern of local self-sufficiency-local production of foods and fibers to supply local consumers was changing as our transportation system and our communications improved. Foods and fibers could be marketed over increasingly greater distances, and production concentrated in areas best suited for it. In this period, it became apparent that marketing services were essential to the success of this growing expansion of marketing-such services as comparable market news, uniform standards of quality, and the procedures for uniform and impartial application of these standards. These were services that could best be provided through governmental sponsorship. Fifty years later, in 1963, the changing marketing pattern for food and fiber is again having a marked impact on governmental programs. Through the intervening years many changes in marketing problems and in governmental services have occurred. And I would be remiss if I neglected to point up in this anniversary year, again, some of these changes and their meaning to AMS in the conduct of its marketing programs. MARKETING CHANGES AFFECT AMS PROGRAMS There are three closely associated categories of change that embrace the challenge to AMS. An understanding of them is basic to our budget. First is the market structure. Changes in the institutional makeup and their relationships are evident for all major categories of commodities but are most pronounced for the perishables. There is a domination of the retailer and the buying organization. Concentration of buying power and integration of operations is occurring at all levels from the producer through the retailer. This results in displacement of old-line functionaries and in the aches and pains associated with such change. The second is market conduct. The changing practices and methods of doing business bring forth with emphasis the need for AMS to be constantly alert to these changes and to adapt its programs accordingly. All of our research, service, and regulatory work is undergoing and must continue to undergo-orientation to these changes in market conduct. Coupled with this is a growing interest by consumers, both in this country and abroad, in wholesome, high quality food. The third category of change is market performance or the results the market system produces. We in AMS are concerned with results for the producer and for the consumer. In the past, AMS activities have made a major contribution to efficient market performance. They can and must continue to do so. The job we have now is far more extensive and complex than in the past when the market structure was simpler, when modes of conduct were fairly well defined, and when freer competitive forces determined the market's performance. The urgency of the situation is obvious. The direction of our course to meet the problems is not always as evident. It takes imagination and considerable courage to plot the course and follow it. This, then, is the challenge to AMS-to adjust, to adapt to the changes occurring, and to provide constructive and effective leadership. An alert, closely knit, responsive organization can meet the challenge. We believe AMS, with the support of Congress and the other branches of Government, is well on its way to fulfilling this role. EMPHASIS ON EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY Positive action has been taken by the Agricultural Marketing Service to attain more effectiveness in program operations, improve manpower utilization, increase worker productivity, and achieve other efficiencies and economies in accomplishing the end job of facilitating the orderly marketing and efficient distribution of agricultural commodities. I might illustrate by citing two or three examples. In the poultry grading program, worker productivity increased from about 7.5 million pounds per man per year in 1960 to nearly 10.5 million in 1962-more than a 30-percent increase. |