Expenses, brush disposal: Increase in estimated deposits from timber sale operators. TABLE 9.-Increases and decreases in man-years in appropriations and other funds, budget estimates 1965 compared with 1964-Continued [Based on 1965 budget estimates and adjusted for comparability with the 1965 appropriation structure. This table reflects the man-years under the appropriations and funds indicated, including those applicable to ! transfers, allocations or allotments to organizations other than the agency receiving the appropriation] Forest Service: For the development program for the national forests: Forest land management: For national forest protection and management. Total, forest land management. Forest research.. State and private forestry cooperation..... Total, forest protection and utilization.. Forest roads and trails: For an accelerated Acquisition of lands for national forests. Increase (+) or decrease (-) +221 -116 -1 +104 +12 +30 +146 program.. +250 -4 +13 +47 Reimbursable services performed for other agencies and work under trust funds. -263 Total, Forest Service.. +189 Accelerated public works program (Department of Agriculture agencies): Program operations are currently applicable only to fiscal year 1964.. -2, 512 -2,814 -6 -2,808 Total net decrease under all funds available to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.. Deduct decrease in man-years included above representing employment in other departments under allocations from U... Department of Agriculture funds... Total net decrease, U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel.... Total, net decrease, above items, Department of Agriculture.. Forest Service, annual and permanent appropriations, and other funds. Accelerated public works program, Department of Agriculture agencies.. Total, net decrease under all funds available to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.. Deduct decrease in man-years included above representing employment in other departments under allocations from U.S. Department of Agriculture funds: Annual appropriations, Forest Service... Total, net decrease for U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel... ACTIONS TAKEN TO REDUCE FUNDS AND EMPLOYMENT +52 -35 +17 -508 -491 +189 -2, 512 -2,814 -6 -2,808 Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Grant, we on this committee have had quite a bit of experience with the Department. We in turn have somewhat the same problem as the President and the Bureau of the Budget. We have also the problem that you, the Secretary, and folks in the Department have. We all have the obligation of trying to hold down expenditures. At the same time we have an obligation to see that the operations of the Department of Agriculture, for the good of all the country, are carried on, exclusive of the Forestry Department which is under another subcommittee. We recognize that, with regard to the Commodity Credit Corporation, it has a responsibility under the law to support prices and if they don't they are in trouble. Yet, if they do support prices and haven't the money, they are in trouble. We recognize that what it takes in the way of financing is always a matter of opinion, particularly so since any moneys received from the sale of commodities become available to the Corporation to carry out its functions-price supports, plus a lot of other things which Congress has given it to do, some of which is not agriculture particularly. As I look over the President's overall budget I see the many, many activities, including meat inspection, research, and the various and sundry things that are essential toward keeping our food plentiful, keeping it cheap, and keeping it wholesome, and then keeping the wholesaler and retailer in business making enough money to stay in business. Yet it looks to me as if agriculture is taking a lot of kicking around when compared with other segments of the Federal budget. The budget speaks for itself, and a special analysis by the committee staff shows the Department of Agriculture to be the only one to receive a reduction of any size for the coming year. For example, the budget cuts the ACP program rather substantially. I have been told that you were told to stay within certain manpower ceilings contrary to what I read in the President's message. I understand that you got directives to actually cut out positions. The Forest Service is not here before us. I have been hearing complaints all over the country about the reduction in employment in the Forest Service because Congress cut the funds. Yet Congress did not cut the funds. And next year's funds won't be available until the 1st of July. I also have been told that there were substantial cuts by the Bureau of the Budget which, on appeal by the Department, were restored. What are the facts? In other words, what total request went to the Bureau of the Budget from the Department? Could we have a copy of that, item by item? We would also like a companion table-what the budget approved for each item. Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. What are the facts about any directive that you had about cutting existing manpower? What order was issued, and who issued it? Mr. GRANT. We received requests from the President and from the Director of the Bureau of the Budget Mr. WHITTEN. Could we have copies of that for the record? Mr. WHITTEN. Did that leave the allocation of the cut up to the Department or did it attempt to place the cut itself? Mr. GRANT. The request left it up to the Department to make a review and submit proposals to them which were in turn modified. Mr. WHITTEN. Did that have to do with existing programs or did that have to do with the increases for the next fiscal year? Mr. GRANT. It had to do with both. It was a request to reduce employment in the fiscal years 1964 and 1965, as well as to reduce appropriations and expenditures. Mr. WHITTEN. The net effect then was to cancel the congressional action last year of increasing funds for research, is that correct? Mr. GRANT. I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that it had the effect. of canceling any congressional determinations or directives, because what we have proposed, primarily, is to reduce employment through increased employee productivity, improved procedures, and organization, curtailment, or elimination of lower priority work, and doing more work under contract where it might be done better, or just as well, in that way. Mr. WHITTEN. I want the full story from you, Mr. Grant, or from the Secretary's Office, as to what you requested, item by item, what the Bureau of the Budget allowed, what employment targets you were given and how you applied them. Mr. GRANT. All right, sir. (The information requested follows:) The Department submitted its 1965 estimates in October 1963 in the customary manner. These were considered by the Budget Bureau and preliminary allowances were informally received in late November. Subsequently, in response to the President's request to his Cabinet on December 11, 1963, the Department made a review and proposed adjustments which might be made in the preliminary allowances. The President's statement to the Cabinet follows: OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY, December 11, 1963. STATEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE CABINET In my memorandum of November 30, I asked each of you— "To press ahead vigorously with your program for manpower control and utilization which you developed in response to President Kennedy's directive of October 11, 1962. "To hold agency employment at or below the personnel targets established in response to President Kennedy's statement to the Cabinet of September 23, 1963." You and I know we can hold the line on employment without causing real damage. I am depending on you personally to deal with this problem. Nine out of ten Government employees do a full day's work for a day's paybut I want that 10th man to measure up also. We need to Cut out excessive paperwork because it breeds overstaffing. Strip down overly elaborate organizations. In short, I want you to give as much attention to management as you do to your programs. For fiscal year 1965, the Budget Director must have your full support in carrying out my directive to hold down Government employment. The 1965 budget total for year end civilian employment must be held below the levels in the 1964 and 1963 budgets. This can be done. Your budgets should reflect economies from better management and higher productivity resulting from improved methods, procedures, organization, and employee incentive. A good manager can do all of this. I intend to disapprove any budget request for more personnel except where the facts leave me no choice. This means that I will grant increases only when they are absolutely necessary to meet final commitments, to properly carry out new legislation, and to do work of the highest national priority. Federal employment has, by your efforts, been held well below the growth rate of our population and our economy. Regular civilian employment grew only by 686 persons from October 31, 1962, to the same date in 1963. If it had followed the trend of State and local government it would have risen by 106,000. But these facts do not justify a continued upcreep in Federal employment. They do not justify us in having 10,000, or 1,000, or even 100 more employees than we need. Based on specific instructions from the Bureau of the Budget, the Department made an interim reply on December 13. This reply was expanded and modified on December 18, 1963. The following reductions in appropriation and expenditure estimates, and in June 30, 1965, employment were made as a result of the submission of December 18 and of discussion between the Department and the Budget Bureau: Agricultural Research Service: To place meat inspection on a self- Agricultural Marketing Service: To place poultry inspection on a self- Total, proposed legislation............... Total, Department of Agriculture.. 1 To be transferred from sec. 32. 2 Based principally on revised estimate of need. 3 Represents decrease in authorization to borrow from Treasury. Appropria- Expenditures tions -$4.216 -$4,080 -3,080 -60 -2, 852 -2,852 -1,400 -1,390 -440 -440 -110 -110 -962 -956 1-99, 831 -1, 220 |
