Mr. WHITTEN. How do the figures on that table compare with the ceilings for the coming fiscal year? Will you be able to carry on at the level you will have reached by next June 30?

Mr. DORNY. No; there will be a further reduction under next year's appropriation proportionate to the reduction in funds that is proposed in the budget estimates. Particularly, as Mr. Williams stated, the reduction in the ACP program authorization of $100 million will require that we reduce staff that was to be financed with funds received through the 5-percent transfer arrangement. I should say partially financed, as the ACP pays about 60 percent of the total cost.

Mr. WHITTEN. We would like to have for the record the effect for this year and the outlook for next year, for man-years and money. (The information requested follows:)

Mr. WHITTEN. Turning briefly to transfers that your organization has from other sources, what do you do in connection with that?

Mr. DORNY. All of these funds come under the employment limitations. The reimbursable funds that are available to us from other than the ACP come primarily from two sources. We receive some funds for the making of soil surveys from local and State governments. Substantial contributions are also made for watershed planning activities. Some funds are advanced to us by local and State governments and are placed in trust funds for helping to accelerate Service programs. These funds are expended by the Service and, therefore, are chargeable against the personnel ceilings that we have received.

Mr. WHITTEN. You mean the personnel ceiling not only includes your own employees, but also those that are employed by you and paid for with funds from other sources?

Mr. DORNY. That is correct.

Mr. WHITTEN. From cities and States?

Mr. DORNY. Irrespective of the source of funds. The personnel who are actually on our payroll are charged against our ceiling.

CONTRACTING FOR PERSONAL SERVICES

Mr. WHITTEN. Is there any way to meet this need through a method of contracting under your present setup, or would that be beyond the control or authority of your organization?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, we have authority, particularly in the watershed activity, to contract for personal services, and we are doing some contracting of engineering services, consultants, and other services, in connection with detailed design of engineering works. We have tried contracting in the watershed planning activity, but we find that very, very few private organizations are equipped, organizationally, to combine the knowledge of soils, crops, water, engineering and so forth, into a composite watershed plan.

After some rather unsuccessful efforts at contracting some of that work, we have determined that it is almost essential that we give close supervision by the Service to the watershed planning activity in order for the right concepts to be involved.

Once an engineering structure has been decided upon as to size, purpose, and so forth, our people can supply the basic facts to a private engineering organization, of which there are a number that can do some of that work.

On soil surveys the soil scientists I believe are practically nonexistent in the private field. Is that right, Dr. Kellogg?

Dr. KELLOGG. Very few. And the reason these people want to have us do the work is because they don't have them available.

Mr. WHITTEN. Members of this subcommittee don't want to waste public moneys any more than anyone else in Government. We appreciate the effort on the part of the President to hold expenditures in line, and we are in accord with the desire. We work very closely with these problems and we realize that in many areas to cut down can cost you money instead of saving money.

I just learned today that funds have not been released to control the pink bollworm. That is one of the problems in the State of Texas. If it gets away it can cause far more damage than can be saved by the few thousand dollars that might be impounded.

I could cite many other illustrations which raises a question in my mind as to just how to handle this.

LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS

This committee, as you know, has done everything it could to get local contributions and local participation and dollars from other sources. If you are to be restricted in the number of people that you have, and you can't do the work that they want done, it is easy to see that they are not going to put up the money. In some cases we will not have saved a dollar because we will have lost local contributions. The Federal Government will have the cost of conservation that wouldn't have cost us anything.

We say the President is responsible for the cuts, but we know the Bureau of the Budget has to deal with these things. Frankly, I think they need an education in agriculture. I could cite many reasons why I feel the Bureau of the Budget needs that education.

What effect do you think this reduction in manpower will have upon your ability to meet the needs to which local groups have made contributions in times past?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. It is rather difficult to put a number on that figure. I can illustrate the matter this way, Mr. Chairman: About 2 weeks ago I received a telephone call from the State of Ohio, indicating that through some State fund, either the Governor's emergency fund or otherwise, there might be available about $100,000 which could be placed in a trust fund to the Service for watershed planning activities. In the light of our general personnel ceiling situation, both for the current year and for the forthcoming year, I urged them to give consideration to other methods that they might be able to do the work, instead of turning the money over to the Service.

I haven't heard anything back from them yet as to whether or not they will find other methods possible. In this particular case the ceiling was the limiting factor to proceeding with it.

AREA REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS

Mr. WHITTEN. Turning now to other funds, I notice you anticipate $80,000, the same amount as this year, for transfer for technical assistance to the area redevelopment program. Yesterday my attention was called to an announcement that the area redevelopment group had made a $3 million loan for the building of a textile mill which will use synthetic fiber in one of the Southeastern States. That announcement is made while the Senate of the United States is busy trying to pass a program under which the Government spends hundreds of millions of dollars trying to make cotton competitive with synthetic

fibers.

On Sunday the Secretary of Agriculture announced that we are going to buy surplus meat, including beef, and give it away to various worthy domestic causes.

Yesterday I pointed out in the record that our Government is supplying the funds for individuals to go into business producing cattle and other livestock in foreign countries, and then letting the beef come into this country without restriction, to compete with domestic grown