Mr. ADDABBо. The final location of the facilities was the choice of the city of New York? Mr. SMITH. Yes. GRAIN INSPECTION UNDER U.S. GRAIN STANDARDS ACT Mr. ADDABBO. Going back to your statement, Mr. Smith, on page 4, you speak of savings in administrative costs and the savings or cutback of several clerical positions. Has there also involved a cutback in supervisory positions, or is the supervisor held on at just a lower level. Mr. GRANGE. This is clerical only. Mr. HOLMAAS. In this particular instance this concerns itself with the administration of the Grain Standards Act which basically involves supervision of licensed, inspectors. What was done here was to streamline some of the reports and some of the administrative detail involved in keeping track of the work being done by these people. So as a result, there was a reduction in administrative costs and elimination of some of these clerical positions to make it possible to place more emphasis on the basic purpose, which is the supervisory job of supervising licensees in the grain inspection field and handling appeals and this type of thing. So, yes, these are clerical positions that have been cut out. Mr. ADDABBO. Could you give us for the record how many positions were cut out by those savings? Mr. HOLMAAS. There were 13 positions eliminated in the field, and four in Washington by this rearragement. Mr. ADDABBO. What would be the dollar saving? Mr. HOLMAAS. That would approximate $70,000. Mr. ADDABBO. Was this elimination anticipated in the 1963 budget? Mr. HOLMAAS. This was in process, in part, at the time of the 1963 budget. It was part of the plan for strengthening the work on grain supervision which was discussed in last year's hearings. Mr. ADDABBO. Was this money then used toward the grain supervision? Mr. HOLMAAS. Yes. Mr. ADDABBO. Was additional help put on with this $70,000? Mr. HOLMAAS. Travel and equipment and other things are involved in this. These supervisory inspectors have to have grain probes, sieves and specialized equipment in checking the samples. Most of this money went into that type of thing, rather than into additional people. Mr. ADDABBO. The entire $70,000? Mr. HOLMAAS. I would think that just about the entire $70,000 would go into recurring expenses for equipment-type items, travel, and necessary other angles of the supervisory grain inspector's jobs. FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION Mr. ADDABBO. On page 5, again on Federal-State cooperation, there is a saving there, I believe, to reduce Federal employment and reduce administrative cost. Will you tell us what the saving there was? Pages 5 and 6 of the statement. Mr. LENNARTSON. What we are reflecting there, Mr. Congressman, is that over the years we have promoted a Federal-State type of venture. In other words, to be specific, rather than hiring a large group of vegetable inspectors as Federal employees, we used State employees on the State payroll, having adequate technical training to do the work. This becomes quite a substantial number in terms of all the different commodities. We do this on grain, fruit and vegetables, dairy, poultry, and so forth. This has the effect of diminishing substantially the growth in the number of employees on Federal payrolls required to do this job. It also has the very fine effect of developing a cooperative working relationship with the State agency which is likewise responsible for this function at the States level. It avoids duplication and creates a much better environment in terms of getting the job done effectively. Mr. ADDABBO. Was there any dollar saving, other than the gradual working out over the past year, in 1963? Mr. LENNARTSON. Yes. This would have to be measured out over a period of years. If we required additional Federal employees, this would require additional Federal appropriation, versus the appropriation we now have. LOCATION OF PEANUT LABORATORY Mr. ADDABBO. Getting back to our problem of peanut research, are we agreed that we are talking about a peanut research facility to be placed in Georgia, if it is approved? Mr. LENNARTSON. Yes. Mr. ADDABBO. Will we need specific legislation passed as to location, or will the Department itself, after this appropriation is given, be able by itself to choose this location in Georgia? Mr. SMITH. The proposed location, Mr. Congressman-the location has been selected and work has been done in connection with drawing up the building plans which are covered by funds made available by Congress in the appropriation covering fiscal year 1962. Mr. ADDABBO. Was the location chosen by the Department? It wasn't by legislation? Mr. SMITH. It was chosen by the Department. Mr. ADDABBO. Has there been any analysis of whether there would be any saving either by one facility, such as contemplated in the construction of this facility, or by the continuation of the work, possibly with additional authorization, for the continuation of the research at the various locations instead of a central location? Mr. SMITH. We feel very definitely that by pulling our staff together that the work that they would do would be much more productive and we would have a much more efficient operation, rather than having them as widely dispersed as we have at the present time, and in the type of facilities which they have available to them to do research. Mr. GRANT. Mr. Addabbo, in this connection I think I would like to make this statement for the record. The Department has basic authority to construct buildings and facilities when provision is made for those facilities in appropriation acts. Therefore, no specific legislation is necessary, only the appropriation of funds for the particular facility or laboratory involved. Mr. ADDABBO. And the Department has general authority to place it where they think it is needed. Mr. GRANT. That is correct. PROPOSED USE OF 1964 INCREASE FOR U.S. WAREHOUSE ACT Mr. ADDABBO. Under the Warehouse Act, the hiring of additional men, how many more men do you anticipate you would hire under the program increase of $155,900? Mr. HOLMAAS. This would provide for 15 additional positions, for an estimated employment of 11, on an annual average basis. Mr. ADDABBO. None of these would be in supergrades? Mr. HOLMAAS. No. Mr. LENNARTSON. They would be primarily located in the field. Mr. HOLMAAS. This provides for 11 grade 5 warehouse examiners, and then there are 3 supervisory examiners at about the grade 12 level, and 1 clerk, which gives you the 15 positions. Mr. ADDABBO. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. AMS APPROPRIATION INCREASES SINCE 1955 Mr. HORAN. Mr. Chairman, of course we are reviewing this budget at a time when we are talking about tax reductions and reform, and, for this coming year, a known deficit. On Monday hearings begin before the Banking and Currency Committee, I believe, to repeal the Silver Purchase Act. It is going to have repercussions. It is something that I think all of us should be concerned about. It is in that light that I begin to ask questions regarding the budget that is before us. In the Agricultural Marketing Service we upped your appropriation in 1955 to $14,234,945. How much of that is for pay? Mr. HOLMAAS. The estimate includes $1,331,000 under "Marketing research and service" for increased pay costs in 1963. Mr. HORAN. That is a comparatively small percentage. Mr. HOLMAAS. I'm sorry. That is the amount we are now asking for to cover 1963 increased pay costs. We are asking for $1,532,000 in 1964 for pay and postage increases. Mr. HORAN. What has been the increase since 1955 percentagewise? Mr. GRANT. The increase in salary costs has been approximately 25 percent in total. Mr. HORAN. More or less like the others? Mr. GRANT. Yes. They all run about the same. As a matter of fact, the same law was applicable to all employees. Mr. HORAN. Would it be too much trouble to indicate the reasons for the other increases? Mr. GRANT. Not at all. Poultry inspection is one of the major ones. Mr. HORAN. I know. We want something that Congress can read, if they will. Mr. HERRELL. That is the difference from 1955. Mr. HORAN. I won't go back any further than that unless it is indicated here. (The material requested follows:) Marketing research and service appropriation changes 1955–63 Available, 1955---- Program changes: For research on the market quality of agricultural commod- For research directed toward improving physical facilities, Total, marketing research.. For expanding and improving the market news service includ- For compulsory poultry inspection under the Poultry Products For grain inspection work under the U.S. Grain Standards Act, For tobacco inspection at 4 newly designated auction markets__ For administration of the Packers and Stockyards Act, prin- For increased workload under the U.S. Warehouse Act.. Net program change--. Other changes: For additional costs on the base program due to increased rates Pay. Postage.. $14, 234, 945 918, 600 421, 000 1, 339, 600 743, 400 11, 559, 100 94, 200 362, 050 37,000 47, 200 1, 121, 550 134, 355 -177, 200 +15, 261, 255 Travel____ Veterinarian position reclassification_ Employer retirement contribution, formerly paid from central fund in Civil Service Commission but decentralized by Public Law 84-854 effective July 1, 1957--- 6, 052, 000 311, 000 323, 300 500, 000 65, 000 1, 541, 800 Marketing research and service appropriations changes 1955-63-Continued Other changes-Continued Change in method of financing the classing of cotton and grad- Employer contribution under the Federal Employee Health To reimburse the Federal employee compensation fund for Leasing costs transferred to GSA during the period 1955-63-To annualize in 1956 transfer to Office of Secretary made for part of 1955 for personnel investigations-- Net other change‒‒‒‒‒ Grand total change, 1955-63---. Appropriation, 1963, adjusted_____ $2,813, 000 239, 300 2,300 -376, 200 -3, 600 +11, 467, 900 +26,729, 155 40, 964, 100 Mr. HORAN. You have construction, and that has been treated, I think, quite fully up to this point. PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS On payments to States and possessions, the appropriation for 1955 is $900,000. It was $1,424,000 last year. You're requesting the same this year? Mr. LENNARTSON. That is right. Mr. HORAN. Were those statutory increases? Mr. LENNARTSON. Appropriation increases. Mr. SMITH. Oh, yes. You understand, Mr. Horan, this money is more than matched by the States themselves under this practice. Mr. HORAN. Put that in the record. Have you a table? Mr. SMITH. We can provide it. It must be matched 50–50, but they more than match it in terms of their activities. Mr. HORAN. I want that in the record. You understand, of course, it all comes out of the common purse. (The information referred to follows:) |