As we point out in that letter, Mr. Chairman, we have no basis for saying that the market reporting work on hogs in Chicago should be terminated. Mr. WHITTEN. May I say for the record myself that our including it in the report does not make a determination. It just asks you to go into the matter and give attention to whether or not it should be changed. So you might proceed. Mr. GRANGE. We address ourselves particularly to the wording of "change from Chicago to" a more western point. The Department of Agriculture does not select, determine, and designate a reporting base or trading base for hogs or any other commodity. This is determined by the industry concerned. Mr. WHITTEN. You determine whether you are going to put your people there to do the work and send it out over wires, don't you? Mr. GRANGE. That is right, Mr. Chairman. We would report the market. In the case of Chicago it is still one of the more important markets. It is No. 2 to Omaha of the markets which we are reporting in the same way as we are Chicago. There is a very heavy volume of pork being traded in the midwestern markets west of Chicago. St. Louis, Kansas City, and other markets up and down the Missouri River that we are not now covering. In our judgment we would not be justified in closing Chicago and shifting our report to one or more of these other markets. Mr. WHITTEN. I think that is sufficient. You might provide for the record the additional information which you supplied to me as chairman. As you can realize, that letter which came to us is not now a matter of record. (The letter requested follows:) Hon. JAMIE L. WHITTEN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations, DEAR CONGRESSMAN WHITTEN: The following statement is contained on page 16 of the House committee report on the Agriculture appropriation bill for 1963: "*** attention should be given to the possible need to change the reporting base for pork products from Chicago to a point farther west in view of changes in marketing of hogs and movement of hog population." All meat reporting was discontinued while price controls were in effect during World War II. Shortly after the war meat reporting was reinstated at New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. Since 1947 additional points have been reinstated or added. Currently, meat reports are being issued from New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Omaha, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and Spokane. While it is true that the movement of hog population during the last 15 years has resulted in an increased proportion of hogs in the Corn Belt, redistribution within the area has been inconsequential. According to the Department's report, "Annual Livestock and Poultry Inventory," hogs and pigs on farms in the United States numbered 57 million head on January 1, 1947, and 55 million on January 1, 1962. The Corn Belt States accounted for 69 percent of the total in 1947 and 73 percent in 1962. Distribution within the Corn Belt was 60 percent in the western section (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas) and 40 percent in the eastern section (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin) in both 1947 and 1962. The entire Corn Belt is now served by Omaha and Chicago reports. Hogs slaughtered in federally inspected plants in the Omaha area totaled 4.2 million and in the Chicago area totaled 2 million head in 1961. Prices at Chicago continue to be used widely by the industry as a basis for trading despite the fact that equally comprehensive quotations are furnished for Omaha. This is probably due to several factors such as the following: Many of the major packers still retain home offices in Chicago; many sales of pork products produced in Midwest plants are made from these headquarters; and Chicago continues to be a major transportation center. Consequently, it would be our judgment that even though we discontinued reporting the Chicago meat markets, the industry would continue to have considerable interest in the meat trade there. We believe that, so far as the overall industry and the entire Corn Belt are concerned, prices at Chicago remain extremely important and should continue to be reported. Substitution of a point farther west would not answer the need as far as the total Corn Belt is concerned. It may be that what the industry desires is more adequate reporting of the western Corn Belt markets to include such points as St. Paul, Sioux Falls, Sioux City, St. Joseph, Kansas City, St. Louis, and the interior Iowa-southern Minnesota area. The committee's interest in this matter is appreciated and we are happy to respond to the comments contained in the report. Should additional information be desired regarding this matter please call upon us. Sincerely yours, R. W. LENNARTSON. POULTRY INSPECTION INCREASES FOR 1963 Mr. WHITTEN. Turning now to inspection and grading, increases that were made last year for poultry inspection. How much money was allocated to this work, how many additional inspectors are there, and where are they located? You might also discuss the increase in number of plants in recent In this connection, I will ask that the table on page 58 of the justifications be included in the record at this point. (The requested table follows:) The following table summarizes the volume of work performed each year beginning in 1959-the first full year the program was in operation-and estimates for 1963 and 1964: Mr. WHITTEN. You might discuss the various aspects of it at this time, if you will. Mr. HOLMAAS. For 1963, $13.8 million from the appropriation act an increase of $719,100-was allocated to poultry inspection. We have average annual employment of 1,811 under the poultry inspection for 1963, as reflected in the table on page 58 referred to. I can break these down Mr. WHITTEN. I asked how many new inspectors you hired with the increase in funds, and how many new plants came into being. Mr. HOLMAAS. For the current year, 1963, our average employment under poultry inspection as compared with the year previously, when we had an average of 1,741 under this project, would be about 71 additional employment this year over last year Mr. WHITTEN. How many veterinarians do you have? Mr. HOLMAAS. We have 503 as of December 31, 1962, in the plants, and 43 supervisory veterinarians in the field. Mr. WHITTEN. Are they listed or included in the number that you gave us as to your employees? Mr. HOLMAAS. Yes, they would be included among those. POSITION CLASSIFICATION OF MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTORS Mr. WHITTEN. Is your Service caught, too, with the law which enables Civil Service to raise the grade and make you pick up the cost? Are you caught in that same study? Mr. HOLMAAS. The study that is being made currently would apply to the "other than veterinarian" inspectors. This applies to between 1,400 and 1,500 non veterinarian poultry inspectors. Mr. WHITTEN. We were told, if I remember correctly, that there was also a study having to do with veterinarians, where the Department anticipated, or at least saw that, if Civil Service were to increase the grade, you would be caught with a lot of increased costs. Mr. GRANT. I think the item that you have reference to is meat inspection, Agricultural Research Service. Mr. WHITTEN. That is where I recall it. if they were caught in the same situation. I was asking this Service Mr. GRANT. Yes. The standards that are being developed by the Civil Service Commission would apply equally to both agencies, and are being developed on the basis of information in both of the agencies. But this is concerned with lay inspectors rather than veterinarians. Mr. WHITTEN. In the first place, I am trying to refresh my own memory as to what the prior testimony was. I understood that the study had to do with veterinarians, and that if they were to conclude that they should have a higher rating, you had no control over it. That is the other department, but that you would have to follow the law, pay them while under civil service what their rating called for, and that would be reflected in an increased cost. I may be in error in my recollection about the other service. I I think I remember that. If so, I want to know if it also applied to your veterinarians. Mr. LENNARTSON. Your recollection is exactly right. There are two groups involved. The veterinarians were reclassified a year ago, and the Congress, through the committee here, made provisions for the increased funds needed as a result of the reclassification. This was poultry inspection and meat inspection. This year the survey deals with the nonveterinarians, the so-called lay inspectors, as we call them. This year it will apply to both services. Mr. WHITTEN. For the record, and we have so many problems we are trying to get over to the Congress and the public some of the reasons for the increased cost. I would like to have the pertinent parts of that law which direct the Civil Service or authorizes them to make the studies and directs the various departments, not only yours, to pay at the increased rate. And I would like, too, for you to point out how many times the Civil Service Commission has exercised their authority under this. and what the resulting effects have been. Again that is a law passed by the Congress, but I think, since it is beyond our control, we might as well have the record complete as to how much effect this may have. Mr. GRANT. When you ask for information on how many times Civil Service has exercised its authority under this law Mr. WHITTEN. In connection with this Department. Mr. GRANT. The Department as a whole, or meat and poultry inspection? Mr. WHITTEN. The Department. Mr. GRANT. The issuance of new and revised standards is a continuous process. These standards affect many areas of work to a greater or lesser degree. We will be glad to provide a statement on this for the record. Mr. WHITTEN. The very statement that you made makes it imperative that we have it in here so that we can show it is not our fault in some instances. Mr. GRANT. It is a continuing process and involves all classes of personnel. (The information requested follows:) The Classification Act of 1949, as amended, title IV, section 401, requires the Civil Service Commission to prepare and publish standards and keep such standards up to date. The pertinent section of the law follows: "TITLE IV-PREPARATION AND PUBLICATION OF STANDARDS "SEC. 401. (a) The Commission, after consultation with the departments, shall prepare standards for placing positions in their proper classes and grades. The Commission is authorized to make such inquiries or investigations of the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements of positions as it deems necessary for this purpose. In such standards the Commission shall (1) define the various. classes of positions that exist in the service in terms of duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements; (2) establish the official class titles; and (3) set forth the grades in which such classes have been placed by the Commission. At the request of the Commission, the departments shall furnish information for and cooperate in the preparation of such standards. Such standards shall be published in such form as the Commission may determine. "(b) The Commission shall keep such standards up to date. From time to time, after consultation with the departments to the extent deemed necessary by the Commission, it may revise, supplement, or abolish existing standards, or prepare new standards, so that, as nearly as may be practicable, positions existing at any given time within the service will be covered by current published standards. "(c) The official class titles so established shall be used for personnel, budget, and fiscal purposes, but this requirement shall not prevent the use of organizational or other titles for internal administration, public convenience, law enforcement, or similar purposes." With respect to pay at the increased rate, the Comptroller General directed this in Comptroller General decision B-134820 dated January 24, 1958, to the Secretary of Agriculture (37 Comp. Gen. 492). This decision states: "When the Civil Service Commission prepares and publishes revised standards for positions as required under section 401 of the Classification Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 1094) it is mandatory that the administrative agency take action within a reasonable time to place the existing positions in the proper classes and grades prescribed in the revised standards and to pay the scheduled salaries of the grades, notwithstanding that the current appropriation estimates did not include the increased cost resulting from the application of the new standards." we had an average of 1,741 under this project, would be about 71 additional employment this year over last year- Mr. WHITTEN. How many veterinarians do you have? Mr. HOLMAAS. We have 503 as of December 31, 1962, in the plants, and 43 supervisory veterinarians in the field. Mr. WHITTEN. Are they listed or included in the number that you gave us as to your employees? Mr. HOLMAAS. Yes, they would be included among those. POSITION CLASSIFICATION OF MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTORS Mr. WHITTEN. Is your Service caught, too, with the law which enables Civil Service to raise the grade and make you pick up the cost? Are you caught in that same study? Mr. HOLMAAS. The study that is being made currently would apply to the "other than veterinarian" inspectors. This applies to between 1,400 and 1,500 non veterinarian poultry inspectors. Mr. WHITTEN. We were told, if I remember correctly, that there was also a study having to do with veterinarians, where the Department anticipated, or at least saw that, if Civil Service were to increase the grade, you would be caught with a lot of increased costs. Mr. GRANT. I think the item that you have reference to is meat. inspection, Agricultural Research Service. Mr. WHITTEN. That is where I recall it. I was asking this Service if they were caught in the same situation. Mr. GRANT. Yes. The standards that are being developed by the Civil Service Commission would apply equally to both agencies, and are being developed on the basis of information in both of the agencies. But this is concerned with lay inspectors rather than veterinarians. Mr. WHITTEN. In the first place, I am trying to refresh my own memory as to what the prior testimony was. I understood that the study had to do with veterinarians, and that if they were to conclude that they should have a higher rating, you had no control over it. That is the other department, but that you would have to follow the law, pay them while under civil service what their rating called for, and that would be reflected in an increased cost. I may be in error in my recollection about the other service. I I think I remember that. If so, I want to know if it also applied to your veterinarians. Mr. LENNARTSON. Your recollection is exactly right. There are two groups involved. The veterinarians were reclassified a year ago, and the Congress, through the committee here, made provisions for the increased funds needed as a result of the reclassification. This was poultry inspection and meat inspection. This year the survey deals with the nonveterinarians, the so-called lay inspectors, as we call them. This year it will apply to both services. Mr. WHITTEN. For the record, and we have so many problems we are trying to get over to the Congress and the public some of the reasons for the increased cost. I would like to have the pertinent parts of that law which direct the Civil Service or authorizes them to make the studies and directs the various departments, not only yours, to pay at the increased rate. |