MESSRS. SYDNEY ANDERSON (CHAIRMAN),

WALTER W. MAGEE, EDWARD H. WASON, JAMES P. BUCHANAN,
AND GORDON LEE

Pat 5

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

MARTIN B. MADDEN, Illinois, Chairman.

MARCELLUS C. SHEILD, Clerk.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
RECEIVED

MAR 2~ 1924

DOCUMENTS DIVISION

HEARINGS

CONDUCTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MESSRS. SYDNEY ANDERSON (CHAIRMAN), WALTER W. MAGEE, EDWARD H. WASON, JAMES P. BUCHANAN, AND GORDON LEE, OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN CHARGE OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION BILL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1925, ON THE DAYS FOLLOWING, NAMELY:

FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1924.

STATEMENTS OF MR. W. A. JUMP, BUDGET OFFICER AND ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND MR. W. W. STOCKBERGER, CLASSIFICATION OFFICER.

FISCAL AFFAIRS OF DEPARTMENT.

Mr. ANDERSON. We should be glad to have you give a general statement, Mr. Jump.

Mr. JUMP. The Secretary asked me to express his regret that he is unable to be present this morning. He has had to make a trip to the West to keep engagements of some weeks standing involving important agricultural conferences at St. Paul and Omaha. I believe he communicated with the chairman a few days ago, before leaving. He desired me to state that he will be glad to appear before the committee prior to the conclusion of the hearings, if desired. Before proceeding to the discussion of the Budget I think I should say that we are very much gratified that the estimates covering the Department of Agriculture are to be considered by the same subcommittee as in the past two years. Your intimate knowledge of the activities of the department and its future needs greatly facilitates the presentation of the estimates and we feel assured the careful considered merited by the very direct relation of the work of the department to the basic agricultural industry of the country. From the study which I understand has been made of the estimates and in view of the availability of the very comprehensive summary prepared by the clerk of the subcommittee, I will not burden you with any lengthy statement on the estimates in general. I will just touch upon one or two points which perhaps should be taken into account. In the first place, if there is no objection, I should like to place in the record an informal summary showing comparisons between appropriations for 1924 and the estimates for 1925, as follows:

From a fiscal standpoint, as shown by the foregoing summary, there is a clear reduction recommended of $15,470,878 as compared with the appropriation for 1924.

Mr. ANDERSON. How much of that is represented by a reduction in the road fund?

Mr. JUMP. In the matter of Federal aid there is a reduction of $15,800,000. At the same time there is an increase of $2,000,000 recommended in the forest-road fund. There was an appropriation of $3,000,000 last year for forest roads, and we are asking $5,000,000 this year. Both years, you will recall, are under the $6,500,000 authorization for forest roads in the last legislative act on the subject. There is also an increase of $550,000 recommended for acquisition of lands under the Weeks law.

In anticipation of the effects of salary classification the so-called statutory salary rolls of the department have been reduced by $167,643 below the appropriations for the current year. This will involve a reduction of between 150 and 175 employees on that roll. While there are a few instances where the contrary is the case, we will be able to make that reduction in the funds in most cases without serious detriment, in view of the fact that the statutory rolls now are submitted in the form of lump sums, subject, of course, to the provisions of the salary classification act of 1923. This change will make for efficiency and economy and the reductions proposed can be taken care of in most cases by the fact that the fund will be in the more flexible form, doing away with the lapses to the Treasury heretofore occurring and permitting the lump fund appropriated to be used to the best possible advantage.

There are numerous reductions and certain increases in the bill. Some of them are real and others are apparent. Many of the increases are due solely to the application of the classification act.

If, for the purpose of analysis, the Budget is stripped of all of the purely fiscal features and consideration is had as to how its provisions affect the "regular" activities of the department, as distinguished from such projects as acquisition of lands, Federal aid to the States, where the department administers rather than expends, etc., and omitting the increase of $197,530 asked on the meat-inspection workat first glance that would seem to be an increase for meat-inspection work, but the character of the item I think is understood by the committee-it is seen that there are 99 items involving reductions in the regular work of the department amounting to $976,926. Analyzing from the same angle, there are increases involving 32 items amounting to $420,396 in the regular work. It is hardly necessary to state that these increases are found to be for only the most urgent items, which were included by the Budget Bureau after its consideration of the department recommendations. The detailed discussion of these items by the chiefs of the bureaus concerned will develop further their urgent character. I hardly think it is necessary to say anything more at this time, Mr. Chairman, the members of the committee being so familiar with the bill and the work of the department; it would merely be taking up time unnecessarily.

If you are interested in the reclassification matter, we might begin with the discussion of that by Doctor Stockberger, the department classification officer, who has given the matter constant attention

since the work has been taken up and who will be in a position to discuss it from any angle you desire.

Mr. ANDERSON. We shall be glad to hear him.

CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES.

Mr. STOCKBERGER. Mr. Chairman, the classification work has proven to be quite complicated. Instead of attempting to take up your time making a general statement, I would be very glad indeed to have you indicate particular features which you would like to have me discuss.

Mr. ANDERSON. That presupposes some knowledge on our part of the proposition, which, as far as I am concerned, I do not possess, so I think you had better start at the beginning and tell us all about it. Mr. STOCKBERGER. Mr. Chairman, if you care to listen to a brief recital of the way the classification work has been handled in the department, I should be very glad to give you an outline of it.

After the classification act was passed and the classification board promulgated the rules under which employees should be classified, the Secretary of Agriculture appointed a classification officer for the entire department, whose duty it became to coordinate and direct all of the classification work. That coordination was effected through the appointment of committees for each bureau or office in the department.

The committee was made up of members chosen partly from the scientific staff and partly from those who were familiar with the personnel work of the bureau. In practically all cases the chief clerk or the administrative assistant was a member of the committee.

The classification of employees was then begun, following the lines laid down by the classification board. An attempt was made to analyze, as closely as the committee could, the positions within the various offices and bureaus, and to coordinate them relative to the specifications of the grades of the classification act.

After that work was done the committees' material was sent into my office, where it was subjected to another comparative review. I may say that it was necessary to bring about a number of reductions in the estimates made in some of the bureaus in order to bring them into harmony.

Mr. ANDERSON. You mean by that, that the average salaries in one bureau or department were relatively higher than in others, so you had to make a reduction in one to bring them on a comparative basis?

Mr. STOCKBERGER. That is true in part; yes. As a matter of fact, it turned out that the average of the salaries in the various bureaus, or rather the percentage cost of classification in the various bureaus differed widely and does still in our estimates, for the reason that in certain of the older bureaus, as, for example, the Weather Bureau, the personnel there occupied statutory positions which were fixed many years ago and were of relatively low rank, as compared with the positions of similar character in some of our newer bureaus.

The aim was not so much to attempt to bring the bureaus all to the same level, because that would have perpetuated any inequality which exists at the present time, as to keep the entire cost of classification down.