« AnteriorContinuar »
Mr. BUCHANAN. It would seem to me that further economy in the ordinary agricultural activities in the Department of Agriculture would depend altogether on whether or not the people want the services.
Mr. JUMP. I think that is correct. If the people want these services they will be willing to finance them from the Public Treasury. If they do not want them, that situation must be recognized.
That is the big question, whether they want those services. That is true of all kinds of work financed by taxation. There is great complaint about municipal taxes. We will take the average small town. The question is, Do they want to continue to have cement sidewalks instead of boardwalks and mud? Do they want electric lights? Do they want a traffic policeman stationed at the main crossing or a signal that turns red and green? Do they want a modern fire department? If they want those things, they will have to pay for them. If they do not want them, then taxes and service rendered will be reduced accordingly. Looking at Federal expenditures for the Department of Agriculture the same questions can be and are being asked. Does the public want to maintain national forests? Does it want improved highways? Does it want meat inspection, food and drug law supervision, tuberculosis eradication from the dairy herds, weather service for shipping and commercial aviation, scientific research to reduce present wastes in agricultural production and marketing and so on? We believe the public does want these services but that it will and does insist on their being provided at the minimum cost for effective operation. We are proceeding on that basis as the sweeping reductions in appropriations show.
At this point I would like to call attention to a factor that Mr. Dunlap brought out in his statement. When we talk about reductions in the Agricultural Department I believe we ought to make clear that any material reduction in the appropriations for this department must necessarily take into account that out of the $314,000,000 figure that is chargeable to the Department of Agriculture for 1933 only 8 per cent, or $27,000,000, is for ordinary activities directly in the interest of agriculture.
Mr. BUCHANAN. That is, of the moneys spent by the Department of Agriculture here?
Mr. Jump. Yes; for agriculture.
Mr. JUMP. No; I am dealing with funds directly expended by the department, not payments to the States. In arriving at this $27,000,000 figure we have deducted from the $60,000,000 for ordinary activities certain things that are clearly of the most general public interest. We have included in that group the Weather Bureau, the general weather service, which is about $2,400,000. That is something that is of equal interest to every citizen in a broad way. Then there is the special weather service for commercial aviation, $1,371,000.
Mr. DUNLAP. That certainly is of no help to the farmer.
Mr. JUMP. That does not help the farmer. It is a vitally necessary service of the Weather Bureau but it is not agricultural. There is the item of meat inspection, $4,959,000. Every citizen is concerned in that.
Food and drug laws take $1,500,000. That is of interest to every citizen,
The national forests are charged with $13,500,000. That is for the
Then there is the Biological Survey, for the conservation and protection of wild life, $2,000,000.
Finally, there is tuberculosis eradication, $5,800,000. That is a matter that is of great concern to public health, especially the health of children, from the standpoint of the milk supply.
When you take out that $32,000,000 group, it leaves $27,000,000 for activitites directly in the interest of agriculture. Even that group includes certain smaller items that we have not deducted, such as the Bureau of Home Economics, which is of general public interest. We have only listed the larger ones, in order to make the point clear.
Of course all of these activities are more or less interrelated and the department functions as a coordinated unit.
Aside from this question of financial analysis, which is made in order to make clear that the entire public, not farmers only, are served by the Department of Agriculture, we take the position that all activities of the Department of Agriculture are based upon the general public interest. Otherwise there could be no sound argument for them. Agriculture is a general public interest in the United States, in the best sense of the term. We have checked these things in order to show that the farmer does not collect from the Government in the way of promotional activities $300,000,000 a year which is the impression that some of the newspapers and some of the large organizations in the country have been giving in the material they are disseminating to the public. In such material it is seldom made clear that 76 per cent of the expenditures are for roads. Another important fact that is seldom taken into account in connection with expenditures charged to the Department of Agriculture is that the department itself spends only 40 per cent of these funds and as to the remaining 60 per cent merely acts as a transmitting agency for payments to the States with certain supervisory and coordinating functions.
CHART SHOWING AMOUNT EXPENDED (BY PERCENTAGES) DURING 1932
FOR ALL FEDERAL ACTIVITIES Mr. BUCHANAN. In connection with this general discussion, you gentlemen furnished for previous hearings a chart showing the amount appropriated for each department of the Government and each independent establishment, and showing the percentage that each of these sums bore to the total. Will you insert a statement of thet kind in the record for this year's hearings?
Mr. Jump. The official charts showing these percentages will, I presume, be contained in the Budget as usual when it is submitted formally. In the meantime, we could perhaps make up a tentative percentage statement from the Treasury statement of expenditures,
subject to confirmation or change by the formal Budget Bureau charts when they are submitted. Of course, it is difficult to compile such a statement without the formal Budget tables at hand, but we will do the best we can.
(The statement follows): Expenditures of whole Government service, fiscal year 1932, on basis of actual cash
withdrawals from Treasury, compiled from figures contained in Treasury Department statement of receipts and expenditures issued July 15, 1932 (exclusive of payments from postal revenues)
1 Includes $213,126,047 in checks issued in and for 1932, plus approximately $12,500,000 covering prior-year checks paid in 1932.
EFFECT OF ECONOMY ACT ON 1934 ESTIMATES
Mr. Jump. The situation with reference to the economy act is this: The Budget reductions for 1934, for all purposes, exclusive of road funds are $4,305,114.
The estimated economy act savings for 1933, for all purposes, shown in this report, are $4,418,409. From that we deduct, in making a comparison with 1934, certain sections of the economy act that are not resubmitted in the Budget to be applicable to 1934. Following that reasoning, we deduct $882,045 saved during 1933, covering those sections. That gives us a net saving of $3,536,364 or 1933 on items of the economy act that it is proposed be continued in effect during 1934. That $3,536,364, compared with the total Budget reductions outside of roads of $4,305,114 shows a greater reduction in 1934 gross than the gross comparable savings in 1933 under the economy act by $768,750.
What I want to make perfectly clear, however, is that in taking the total economy act savings estimated for this year and comparing them with the total reductions in the Budget for next year, is that the actual sections themselves will not check up or follow through in
individual items for the reason that you can not take the 1933 picture and transpose it into 1934. Each of these items has had to be taken by itself and a savings reportable under the economy act in 1933 will not necessarily occur again in 1934. I will give you one or two illustrations to make the point. This year certain amounts were to be saved by the impounding of money on account of vacancies. Take the Weather Bureau, for example. They had about 30 men who were summarily retired on July 1, the day after the economy act passed. We had to send out telegrams to those men and then we had by telegraph to send other men from other points to many of these that were one-man stations and keep the substitutes there for varying periods from a few days to a few months, pending final determination of what would be done about permanently filling the vacancy caused by the compulsary retirement. That meant that in that bureau, for instance, during the early part of this year, we had a considerable impounding of funds that will not be true in 1934, because that factor will not occur. Such of the places as are to be filled have been filled and of course the employments will cover the entire fiscal year 1934.
Another thing that is different in 1934 from 1933 is the printing and binding. The economy act made a very drastic limitation on the printing funds for the Government as a whole. The Director of the Budget was faced with the difficult task of distributing this allotment among the numerous departments. Under the Budget Bureau allotment the Department of Agriculture had to reduce $267,000 in printing expenditures. The money was appropriated but we could not spend it.
Now, next year, according to my understanding, it is not recommended that the printing be handled by that kind of a limitation. Therefore, we did not report a corresponding reduction next year on printing, although there is a reduction, in a lesser amount, on the printing item. Each item under this economy act has had to be considered individually. I may say to you that there have been literally hundreds of inquiries made by the departments and comptroller's decisions resulting therefrom. They are still coming out, several a day sometimes, and it requires a lawyer of a high type to make a digest of them and tell us what to do in order to operate under the economy act. There is an endless maze of technicalities as to how these personnel provisions will be applied; whether to this kind of temporary employee, whether a road laborer promoted to be a camp cook is subject to it, whether it will apply to a case where two men are exchanging positions, and so on; in other words, there is a highly technical maze that we are still trying to get through, to straighten things out.
I think that most of them have now been straightened out but there are certain mechanical features that are in a highly unsatisfactory state but which will be remedied somewhat if we can operate under a more simple plan during 1934, as the Budget contemplates. These complicating factors have had a material effect in making it difficult to estimate for this year and it also carries the same complexity into next year and has a direct bearing on our inability to make exact comparisons between.
I would like to put this table in the record in order to make clear the figures I gave the committee a few moments ago.
(The table referred to is as follows:) Budget reductions for 1934, for all purposes, exclusive of road funds. $4, 305, 114 Economy act savings, 1933, exclusive of road funds --- $4, 418, 409 Less savings in 1933 under economy act provisions not recommended to be continued for 1934
3, 536, 364
Exces of Budget reductions over. continued economy act
DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF LEGISLATIVE FURLOUGH
I would like to put in a statement of the total deductions in next year's estimates on account of the legislative furlough. The total is $3,564,190. During the hearings we may want to inquire into those figures and I have a short statement here which explains that which I would like to put in the record.
(The statement referred to is as follows:) Budget estimate deductions, 1934, on account of continuation of legislative furlough Ordinary activities..
$3, 275, 360 Payments to States.
10, 617 Road funds.-
278, 213 Total..
3, 564, 190 Mr. BUCHANAN. I understand that the Budget recommended the elimination of certain sections of the economy act as applied to next year's appropriations. Is that correct?
Mr. JUMP. That is my understanding. I do not know that they recommended the elimination of them, but they did not include some of them, as I understand it, in the submission of the Budget, and in other cases recommended simplification, as in the case of the legislative furlough.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Was that act in force for just a year?
Mr. JUMP. Some parts of it were. Certain other sections of it were permanent law. Certain sections were temporary law, for 1933 only.
Mr. BUCHANAN. As to those sections the reenactment of which the Budget did not recommend, were they temporary law?
Mr. Jump. It is my understanding that the Budget for 1934 deals only with sections that apply to the fiscal year 1933. I have not seen the exact submission, however.
Mr. BUCHANAN. If they were reenacted, would they result in further economies?
Mr. Jump. The legislative furlough is the principal one, of course, from the standpoint of real reduction of any size. Under that plan each employee will be required to take one month's furlough without pay during 1934, just as in the present year. If that is continued, in the Department of Agriculture alone there is a reduction in excess of $3,500,000 based upon this factor, and I suppose other departments will have relative reductions. It means a reduction, roughly of one-twelfth of the pay roll.
Mr. BUCHẢNAN. It would be one-twelfth of the total salary roll. Mr. Jump. That is correct.
Mr. SANDLIN. You are estimating here for only 11 months' pay, is that correct?