consists of additional conservation measures contributing to flood prevention in those same 11 watersheds. The $5.2 million plus the $2 million represent funds that were carried in the appropriation for flood prevention in 1953. The blue represents what I referred to as measures that are primarily for flood prevention; for example, structural measures. The yellow, which is included in the flood-prevention appropriation for the current year, represents additional measures such as fire prevention, the planting of grass, and that sort of thing, all of which is in aid of flood prevention for which funds have heretofore been carried along with the funds for structures. Again, on the 11 watersheds, the green area represents funds being spent from national program appropriations, on the agriculture conservation program, the Forest Service programs, and SCS in these specific watershed areas. The dark green area at the bottom represents general basin investigations which you know about in the Arkansas white-red, and the New England-New York basins-$200,000. The dark blue area represents the amount carried in the flood-prevention appropriation in 1953 for the preliminary examinations and surveys we have been talking about, Mr. Horan; that is $700,000 in 1953. The 1954 budget before you now carries one-half million dollars for general basin investigation and $1 million, a $300,000 increase, for the preliminary examinations and surveys. The significant thing about the shift that we are talking about in funds is this yellow area which represents $2 million for conservation measures in aid of flood prevention that are appropriated for in the current year in the flood-prevention appropriation. In 1954 $3,200,000 is provided for such work in the existing 11 watersheds, and $3,700,000 in the 7 new watersheds, but these funds are being transferred to and appropriated as a part of regular national program funds. Only the area shown in blue, plus funds for preliminary examinations and surveys and general investigations, is included in the appropriation titled, "Flood prevention." Thus the operations shown in blue are limited to structural measures, that is water-retarding measures. For such work, the budget now before you proposes $11.2 million as compared with $5.2 million in 1953 for the 11 existing watersheds. It also proposes $2.7 million for the seven new watersheds. For additional measures that conbribute to flood prevention, the budget proposes $3.2 million for the existing 11 watersheds as compared with $2 million in 1953, and $3.7 million for the 7 new watersheds. Again, the green area in this column represents funds in the national programs, that will be expended, if appropriated, in the same watershed areas for conservation measures. Mr. HORAN. That is by transfer? Mr. ROBERTS. No; direct expenditures. In other words, in the ACP program, the SCS program, or the Forest Service program, the amount shown in the green area is being spent as part of the national programs in these 18 watersheds. It is shown here to indicate the total contributions to the flood control program in these watersheds from regular program funds, as well as from the flood-prevention appropriation. Mr. HORAN. In other words, they are allocating their funds that we appropriate them for the general field of flood control, Forest Service, and other related divisions? Mr. ROBERTS. When you look at it, you can see the total effort that is going into these watersheds for flood prevention-for conservation practices and structures-from the national program funds as well as funds placed in the budget to accelerate this character of work in these watersheds. Mr. HORAN. Do you have, broken down, an amount of those funds and all of those categories that is spent for (1) administration, (2) research, (3) field practices, and (4) structural construction? Mr. ROBERTS. There are no research expenditures in this appropriation. This represents structures and land-treatment measures. I do not have a figure for administration. I am sure we could develop the figure for past years if you wish. We have an overlay on this chart if you wish to take time to see it. What it does is take these various areas and indicate which agency is carrying out the work. For structures in the current year, of the $5.2 million, there is allocated to the Forest Service $600,000. $4.6 million would go into nonforest areas, and is allocated to SCS. Of the $2 million in 1953 that represents additional conservation measures that contribute to flood prevention, the Forest Service has a half million dollars, and SCS has a million and a half. Mr. HORAN. This is for the Department of Agriculture? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. Mr. HORAN. We have no charts which indicate the amount spent by Army Corps of Engineers or the Interior Department in these same watersheds? Mr. ROBERTS. No; we do not. This [indicating] is the same breakdown for the budget in 1954. NEED FOR AREA PLANNING IN FLOOD CONTROL AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROGRAMS Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Whitten, I believe you have some questions. on the general budget picture? Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Roberts, in my own area, the two watersheds were included in the original flood control act passed by Congress, work on which were a part of a program of building four big reservoirs which bottled up four rivers in my district, the law being passed before I came here. This watershed work was a major part of the program, and it was sold to the country on the ground that the Government was going to do the watershed program. The Government built the dams, did the damage, but has been very slow in relieving the situation with watershed work. It has always been my belief that the weakness of your soil program is that your SCS worked out individual farm programs in such detail that they never got through, and about 80 percent of the detail on each farm was not carried out, and they should spread it over wider areas; that PMA did not have enough detailed planning as is provided in flood control as it was formerly known, or the flood-prevention program. There you have a given area and a plan. That seems to me to be the proper approach; that is, have a plan for a given area and then set out to carry out the plan. Under this change, funds for water-retarding-basin construction, for instance, will be appropriated directly to flood prevention, and land-treatment measures will be done by PMA under its regular practices. If the ACP program should be eliminated, where are you left on those land-treatment measures in those watersheds? Mr. ROBERTS. There is included in this blue area, where structures are covered, funds to do the land-treatment work which is directly related to the structures. For example, if you built a pond or a reservoir, there is included also funds that would go into grassing the areas around it, but the additional conservation measures which do not have a direct relationship to the structure itself would be in this area here and would be financed from national program funds. What you say is true, and it is felt pretty keenly by some people who are strong supporters of this flood-prevention program. They feel this approach is not good, because they believe that the structures have a direct relationship to the measures that contribute to flood prevention, and that that relationship might not be protected through the legislative process. The one might not be considered in relation to the other. On the other hand, the people who advocate this approach take the position that these measures shown in yellow are just the same as the measures shown in green, and, that since they are similar practices funds for them ought to be put together, rather than separate them only because certain parts relate to these watersheds particularly. Mr. WHITTEN. Is there any way by rule or regulation where the SCS end of this could be tied in to the flood-control plan of a given watershed? Mr. ROBERTS. Administratively, I think you could, within the amount allocated, let us say on the ACP program, to a given State. Mr. WHITTEN. I will not pursue this question further because, as I understand it, this subject is under investigation by the Department, and all this could be on a different basis. Mr. ANDERSEN. That is right. Mr. WHITTEN. I would like to go into the general budgeting process which we are up against this year. I want to say, as I intended to say earlier, I am fortunate in having Mr. Andersen as chairman of this committee, because he, as well as Republican members of this committee, have proved themselves to be real friends of the American people and agriculture, and I can see that to proceed now with your hearings is something that is necessary. Yet, it leaves some problems. As I understand the budget before us, it came down before a change in administration. Mr. ROBERTS. It came down before the inauguration; yes, sir. NATURE OF PROPOSED ECONOMIES IN THE DEPARTMENT Mr. WHITTEN. I raised the matter yesterday, and there might be a little personal pride in it that we on this committee felt we had held down as best we knew how. And in comparison with other departments, we have held this appropriation far below what other departments and agencies have had. The new Secretary, as I note from the press, started off with the feeling that this was an overexpended agency. It leads me to wonder whether, in this review of the Department, there was a recheck to see if you could save money or whether you were told to cut down 10, 15, or 20 percent, or some other percentage, and then set out to try to find the money. How did the order come down? Mr. ROBERTS. The order did not set a percentage or other budget ceiling such as we have in the usual budgetary process. The order which came down to the Department was published verbatim, I think, in the Congressional Record, so it is public information. It directed that a review be made immediately of the programs and activities of all departments and agencies, that the review be made with a view to having a progressive reduction in personnel. Mr. WHITTEN. I wonder if we might have a copy inserted here? Is it the regular order of the President that went down to the departments and agencies? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir, and I think we might put in the record along with that order, a copy of Secretary Benson's departmental memorandum which implemented it in the Department of Agriculture. Mr. WHITTEN. That is the point I wish to make. I hope his order did not direct the Department to reduce a given percentage or amount before study. His statement to the press indicated he made his findings before he studied the matter. Mr. ANDERSEN. If there is no objection from the subcommittee, we will insert those orders as you suggest. (The material referred to follows:) EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington 25, D. C., February 3, 1953. The honorable the SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: One of the first and most important tasks of our new administration is to review the 1954 budget and /to proceed toward the accomplishment of a balanced budget. This review will take the initial steps toward that goal; will establish in definitive form how far we can go in that direction in the fiscal year 1954; and set the stage for the fiscal year 1955. It should help to identify issues that will be significant in the formulation of the budget for that year. The problem is complicated by inheritance of the costs of a Federal debt of more than $265 billion; indicated deficits for the fiscal years 1953-54 totaling $15.8 billion; and accumulated unexpended balances of appropriations in excess of the total new obligational authority requested for fiscal year 1954. It is clear that this situation will not be brought under control without action to reduce budgetary obligational authority, reduce the level of expenditures, critically examine existing programs, restrain commitments for new programs, and generally to drive for greater efficiency and reduced costs. In this review the policies shall be as follows: With respect to personnel. It is the policy to reduce the number of Government employees. Each department or agency head shall immediately restrict the hiring of additional personnel. No vacancies shall be filled until the department or agency head shall have determined to his satisfaction that (a) The positions represented by vacancies cannot be eliminated. (c) Increased efficiency, better utilization of personnel, or changes in standards and policies of department or agency operation will not make possible the attainment of (a) and (b) above. It is the policy to achieve a progressive reduction of personnel for the remainder of the fiscal year 1953 and for the 1954 budget. Variations from this policy, as applied to individual departments and agencies, will be granted by the President in his review of the 1954 budget only upon specific request and adequate justification by the department or agency head. With respect to construction.-It is the policy to proceed only with those projects which are deemed clearly essential in terms of the objectives of this administration on such projects to employ the strictest standards of economy. Each department and agency head is therefore directed to- (a) Review all proposed or authorized construction projects on which work has not yet begun, and to propose initiation of construction during the remainder of the fiscal year 1953 and the fiscal year 1954 only on those projects which he determines meet the above criteria. (b) Review all going construction projects in the light of the above criteria and take such action as he may deem appropriate, including action to stop the work. With respect to all programs.-It is the policy to operate at a minimum level of cost and expenditures. This policy requires that the necessity for all work be questioned and that action be taken to eliminate unnecessary programs and to hold the remainder to minimum levels. Each department and agency head is therefore directed to (a) Permit no increases over the January rate of obligations except on complete justification and specific approval, unless such increases are clearly necessary to meet requirements fixed by law. (b) Initiate an immediate review within his department or agency calling for recommendations on the downward adjustment of program levels and for information as to the probable effect of such adjustments on Government services. The results of these reviews should be used wherever possible in the 1954 budget revision procedure and in the preparation of submissions for the 1955 budget. You are expected to translate these guides into proposals for specific revisions of the buget figures for your department or agency and to transmit them to this office in the form indicated in the attachment. Your proposals should be received by this office on or before March 2, 1953. Pending the receipt of your recommendations and the President's decisions on proposed revisions of the 1954 budget, any significant deviation from these policies and criteria shall be reported to the Bureau of the Budget. Your recommendations pertaining to the 1954 budget also should indicate the possibilities of making further changes in subsequent budgets where you propose that legislation now in effect be amended or repealed. Where your budget review indicates the desirability of a change in legislation, a draft bill or other proposal for action should be submitted for appropriate clearance as promptly as possible. Legislative proposals, originating either in Congress or in your department or agency, which would affect financial requirements of your department or agency, should be reviewed in the light of the budget policies set forth above. The recommendations which you make in response to this letter, like all other budget estimates, are in the nature of advice for the President, and are highly confidential prior to the time that the President formally has acted thereon. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH M. DODGE, Director. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington 25, D. C., February 5, 1953. MEMORANDUM No. 1322. REVIEW OF AGENCY PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES With the approval of the President and after discussion with the Cabinet, the Director of the Budget has issued instructions for a review of agency programs and activities, for restricting obligations in the current fiscal year, for reducing employment, and for the development of recommendations on specific revisions of the 1954 budget. In sending these instructions to the Department, Mr. Dodge said: "One of the first and most important tasks of our new administration is to review the 1954 budget and to proceed toward the accomplishment of a balanced budget. "This review will take the initial steps toward that goal; will establish in definitive form how far we can go in that direction in the fiscal year 1954; and set the stage for the fiscal year 1955. It should help to identify issues that will be significant in the formulation of the budget for that year. "The problem is complicated by inheritance of the costs of a Federal debt of more than $265 billion; indicated deficits for the fiscal years 1953-54 totaling $15.8 billion; and accumulated unexpended balances of appropriations in excess of the total new obligational authority requested for fiscal year 1954. "It is clear that this situation will not be brought under control without action to reduce budgetary obligational authority, reduce the level of expenditures, |