The authorization for the 1974 RECP was for $160 million, plus $15 million to be transferred from the Environmental Protection Agency for a total of $175 million. A program level of $90 million was announced and was carried out with the remaining $85 million now under consideration for rescission. Including the reinstated 1973 REAP and the 1974 RECP, approximately $300 million were made available for cost sharing, during the 1974 program year. This is the largest amount authorized for such conservation programs since 1943. The "substantial completion" rule has been relaxed which will result in the obligation of most of the funds allocated under both programs by January 1, 1975. As a result, the bill sponsored by Senator Clark would have very little effect on the 1973 RECP spending level since most of these funds are committed. However, it would boost 1974 RECP funds beyond what could be committed this year if the Congress does not agree to the rescission. Also, a failure to accept the rescission of authorization and the passage of Senator Clark's bill would require a further appropriation not currently included in the 1975 act as passed by the House of Representatives. This would require three programs1973 REAP and 1974 and 1975 RECP-to be operated at the same time. We strongly oppose the passage of Senator Clark's bill and urge you to accept the President's request for rescission of the 1974 funding. This amount, added to the already generous authorization in the 1975 act, would clearly be an excessive amount of spending for this purpose in calendar year 1973. This increased spending would come at a time when every dollar of reduction in the Federal budget is important in fighting inflation. Aside from adding to Federal expenditures, it is doubtful that larger cost-sharing funds would appreciably increase conservation in 1975 in view of the tight supply situation for materials. We have not made a formal study on the extent of conservation practices that are now being undertaken and would likely be undertaken in the future without cost sharing. However, in our general evaluation of the program, we hope to develop more specific information on this point. We do believe, however, that the higher income levels of the past years are enabling farmers to broaden their efforts to protect their land and its fertility. Sincerely, CLAYTON YEUTTER, Mr. WHITTEN. Under current legislation availability of these funds will expire December 31, 1974. In your supporting material you indicate these funds will not be obligated. Why is it necessary to initiate a rescission action on these funds for a period of a few months? Mr. FRICK. The rescission of $85 million was requested because there were two programs operating concurrently and we did not believe that all of the funds authorized by Congress would be needed through the obligating period December 31, 1974. During calendar year 1974, over $300 million is available for cost-sharing under the two programs and we estimate that around $260 to $275 million will be obligated. Mr. WHITTEN. In the attachment to your general statement you indicate the rescission will reduce outlays in fiscal year 1976 by $85 million. If, based on your own contention that these funds would not be obligated, what is the premise for your assertion that the rescission will reduce outlays by $85 million in 1976? Mr. FRICK. These funds would not be obligated since the obligating period expires December 31, 1974, and we have over $300 million available for conservation cost-sharing in program year 1974. Present estimates indicate that all of the funds available will not be obligated. There would be no reduction in outlays in fiscal year 1976, since the budget assumes the request for rescission will be approved. COUNTY OFFICE REDUCTIONS Mr. WHITTEN. What formal action has been taken with regard to reductions-in-force in county offices, and what action do you contemplate in the near future in this regard? Mr. FRICK. No action has been taken at the national level headquarters of ASCS to reduce employment in county offices. In developing workload data for all of ASCS, it was evident that some reductions would be in order and managers were requested to make necessary adjustments to the best of their abilities to assure that no more funds or staffing authority would be granted to counties than would be needed to accomplish work in the county. We also asked that continuous careful monitoring be implemented so that prompt management action could be taken to correct errors in reductions of both man-days and dollars. The attached copy of Notice AO-435 further explains actions taken at the national level. In order to obtain additional information on proposed employment actions in the States, we asked the States to submit estimates of the total reductions expected to be made. Nationwide, it showed that estimated reductions of about 800 employees would be needed to balance employment with projected workload. Through mid-November 1974, notices had been issued by States to about 167 employees. Other notices are expected to be issued in ensuing months with the largest reductions expected after January 1975. The attached table shows results of the States' projections. [The information follows:] 42-275 O-74-16 COUNTY OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS AND MANPOWER RESOURCES 2 To provide guidance on use, control of funds, and manpower resources as issued in Notice BU-311, Revised County Office Allocations FY 1975. BACKGROUND - A Each year States have received initial county allocations based primarily on data provided by our work measurement system. While adjustments in these initial allocations were provided for, some offices assumed that these allocations should not be adjusted except for very unusual conditions. Because o program changes occurring in county offices 3 POLICY Use county office allocations and work measurement data described in Notice EU-311 as guides rather than substitutes for effective management judgments that are more closely tuned to the actual work situation county-by-county. SED's are to make necessary adjustments to the best of their abilities to assure that no more funds or staffing authority are granted to a county than are needed to accomplish needed work. Continuous careful monitoring is expected throughout the year so that prompt management action can be taken to correct for any errors I judgment or emergency developments. GUIDANCE Regional directors will be consulting with each State to provide additional guidance and to assure that this policy is fully implemented equitably across the Nation. 5 NOTICE DISPOSAL January 1, 1975. Mr. WHITTEN. Legislation has been passed by the Senate (S. 3943) making these funds available through December 31, 1975. If this legislation is enacted into law, would you still recommend this rescission? Mr. FRICK. Yes. Mr. WHITTEN. Describe in detail exactly what the Department will be required to do if the Congress denies this request and requires obligation of these funds. What effect would these required obligations have on expenditures? What effect would they have on program accomplishments? Mr. FRICK. If the Congress fails to rescind the RECP balances as requested, and if under the law these funds are released for obligation prior to the date on which they would otherwise lapse (December 31, 1974), the funds will be added to the 1974 program currently underway. Due to timing, it is difficult to anticipate how much, if any, of the $85 million would be obligated. Increases in expenditures in fiscal year 1975 would be nominal if any increase at all. EMERGENCY CONSERVATION MEASURES Mr. WHITTEN. Insert the pertinent section of House Doc. 93-365 in connection with the emergency conservation measures program. [The information follows:] Deferral Nos. D75-21 DEFERRAL OF BUDGET AUTHORTY REPORT PURSUANT TO SEC. 1013 OF PUBLIC LAW 93-344 Agency: Agriculture. Bureau: Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Appropriation Title and Symbol: Emergency Conservation Measures-12X3316. These funds are used for sharing the cost of emergency conservation measures to deal with cases of severe damage to farm and range lands as a result of natural disasters. Assistance is made available to treat new conservation problems which meet the criteria set forth in the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C 590 (h)) and funds are allocated for use only in those counties designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as disaster counties. These allocations do not become obligations until agreements are signed to rehabilitate the land. The funds allocated for use in 1975 are considered sufficient to meet anticipated program requirements. The $5 million deferred is reserved for contingencies pursuant to the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 665) and will be made available should additional emergency requirements arise. These funds are available without regard to fiscal year limitation. Estimated effects There are no programmatic or budgetary effects as a result of this deferral. The reserved funds would only be made available and obligated if damage to farm and range lands exceeds the levels experienced in recent years. Mr. WHITTEN. In view of your own statement which indicates it is impossible to anticipate natural disasters which require the use of these funds, what are the benefits to be derived from taking formal deferral action in this connection at this time? Mr. FRICK. We feel that the unobligated balances on hand will be sufficient to cover requests for cost-sharing assistance for disasters |