Dr. BREIDENBACH. This work has not been done. Awards have not been made.

Mr. ROUSH. I know, but about all you have to do now, at least on 12 programs, is to sign the check.

Dr. BREIDENBACH. That is true.

Mr. ROUSH. On nine others you just need a little more managing or a little more information, isn't that correct?

Dr. BREIDENBACH. We need more information.

Mr. ROUSH. I thought your justification here was somewhat misleading in this regard because you state on the last page the award of the $4 million and the establishment of a project management system would occupy the program staff for the most of 1976. It seems to me that from what you have told us here that that work for the most part is behind you.

Dr. BREIDENBACH. No, not the project management. We have to monitor these projects and make sure that they are being carried on effectively according to a plan.

In addition, it takes staff time to review the technical information that comes in and to come to the point where we approve the second group of nine grants.

Mr. ROUSH. How many other applications are pending?

Dr. BREIDENBACH. Those are all the applications we have, sir.

APPLICATIONS FOR CLEAN LAKES FUNDING

Mr. ROUSH. You have more coming in, isn't that correct?

Dr. BREIDENBACH. Yes, I am sure that there will be more coming in. However, looking over the 21 that we have there are going to be many duplication requests to demonstrate techniques that we are already looking at.

So it doesn't represent a new group of applications all of which could be considered eligible for funding.

Mr. ROUSH. When the Congress authorized this program it authorized a rather extensive program, did it not?

Dr. BREIDENBACH. Yes, it did.

Mr. ROUSH. What was the total authorization? Was it $300 million or $350 million?

Mr. PILZYS. $300 million.

Mr. ROUSH. I think during the hearings last spring I pointed out that apparently someone has expressed less than an enthusiastic interest in the program in view of the fact that no requests have been forthcoming for moneys for the program. The fact is that you find within your own shop that this is a desirable program, is that not the case?

Dr. BREIDENBACH. I think the objective of cleaning up lakes is a very worthy objective. Again, it must be stacked in terms of determination of both human and fiscal resources against many, many other things and must take its place in the priorities.

STAFFING OF CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM

Mr. ROUSH. In your justifications you talk about the need for transferring people to accomplish the use of this additional money if

it should not be deferred. How many people are working on this particular program right now?

Dr. BREIDENBACH. I would say that in headquarters we have about half a man-year. In each of the regions I would say we have another half a man-year.

Mr. ROUSH. If we should not defer the $15 million, how many more people would you have to add?

Dr. BREIDENBACH. To manage this program?

Mr. ROUSH. Yes.

Dr. BREIDENBACH. The $15 million level, it would take at least three times as many as we have now which would be about 15 people.

Mr. ROUSH. How in the world could it take three times as many people to manage a program with the difference between what you are doing now and the difference between the new program would be $11 million?

Mr. DIETRICH. It would be $15 million over and above the $4 million. Mr. ROUSH. Let's take the $19 million figure as against the $4 million figure or a $4 million program against a $19 million program.

Dr. BREIDENBACH. Right.

Mr. ROUSH. Basically the work that is done is the same work. You are not going to do many new things, in other words; are you?

Dr. BREIDENBACH. No. It is just a question of pure labor to receive, review, correspond with an applicant, get the applications in the shape where it can be funded, to put it through the administrative process, to monitor the grant, to get the report, to distribute the report. It is just a multiplication factor in a program like this.

Mr. ROUSH. Three times a man-year is not much of a factor, is it? Mr. ALM. I am not sure that would be a valid estimate once we get into the monitoring activity because that will require day-to-day surveillance of these projects.

Dr. BREIDENBACH. The regional staff has to go out to look at these projects to make sure that the program plan which was approved is being carried out.

Mr. ROUSH. In your justifications you really make this sound like something much bigger than it is. The award of the $4 million and the establishment of a project management system would occupy the program staff for most of fiscal year 1976.

It sounds like a big deal. Are there other questions?

Mr. TALCOTT. Not at this time.

Mr. ALM. I have just one comment with respect to EPA's position in this program. As I recall, we did send letters to the conferees indicating that we felt this program should be reduced or eliminated.

DEFERRAL IMPACTS GOVERNMENTWIDE

Mr. ROUSH. Well, we appreciate your appearance before the subcommittee, Mr. Alm, and those who are supporting you.

We also appreciate the difficulties you have in dealing with questions of deferral and rescission.

Mr. TALCOTT. Which is very obvious in the testimony.

Mr. ROUSH. I think Mr. Talcott is right. They are very obvious in your testimony and it is my own interpretation, but your lack of enthusiasm for what you are presenting here today is obvious.

Mr. ALM. May I make one closing comment? We have attempted to be, as we always have, very candid with the committee in terms of program impacts. I think the Administrator feels very strongly that we are being very candid with the Congress.

I do think that we do need to put into perspective the total fiscal problem and the part of it that EPA is asked to bear. I understand that the deficit this year is approaching $70 billion. Without significant cutbacks there would be a very significant deficit next year.

So I just want to put this perspective on the deferrals that we have to deal with.

Mr. ROUSH. Thank you. We have the same problems here. It is emphasized to us more now because we are acting under the Budget Control Act and the Anti-Impoundment Act. It means that the Congress itself is going to have to look at that same total picture which you refer to and which you are a part of.

WASTE TREATMENT GRANTS

Mr. TRAXLER. I want the agency people to know that at the beginning of the year I had reservations as to whether or not the grant moneys could get flowing, particularly as 1975, in our area at least, was a year of high unemployment. We had a great need throughout the State of Michigan and in many parts of the Midwest for the grant moneys. A number of people had been in touch with me earlier this year who were verbalizing this and were concerned about the impoundments which took place in the early 1970's and were ready to get cranked up to go on the sewer projects.

Their communications to me recently have been that the pipeline is now moving. I want you to know that I am pleased about that and I am sure that people I represent and people in the Midwest, the Chicago office particularly I think, ought to be complimented.

Mr. ALM. Thank you very much. We put a major effort into moving the waste treatment program ahead.

Coupled with the additional positions that have been provided, I think we are able now to keep the program moving at an acceptable rate.

FORMULATION OF NATIONAL POLICIES

Mr. BAUCUS. One of the obvious problems this subcommittee has is the one we are in fact going through right now. It is the greater overall fiscal responsibility of evaluating and trying to cut some budget amounts and not others in the Federal budget.

One of the problems we have is in looking at only the EPA or HUD. We don't get much opportunity in the subcommittee to consider other priorities.

x

I wonder whether you, when you are dealing with OMB, when they say, "Look, you have to cut back a million," whether you are in a position to argue and say, "Look, you are spending $3 billion for the Middle East, what's going on here?"

My question is: To what degree do you get into this kind of interplay and conversation with OMB?

Mr. ALM. It is an interplay I would like to get into. However, I am afraid they feel our expertise in the Middle East is lacking.

Mr. BAUCUS. So the answer to the question is "No."

Mr. ALM. We do not get involved in the formulation of total national priorities.

Mr. BAUCUS. At all?

Mr. ALM. No.

Mr. TALCOTT. No; but I hear you are defensive of your own programs as the committee would expect you to be.

Mr. ALM. We defend our programs before OMB and build the best defense we think we can.

Mr. Rousi. Are there any other questions? If not, we appreciate your coming to present the facts as you have in your testimony today. You may be excused.

The committee is adjourned.

George E. Evans, Robert B. Foster, and Charles G. Hardin, Staff Assistants

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1975.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

WITNESSES

HON. EARL L. BUTZ, SECRETARY

JOSEPH R. WRIGHT, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

KENNETH E. FRICK, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE

FRANK B. ELLIOTT, ADMINISTRATOR, FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION

JOSEPH W. HAAS, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, WATER RESOURCES, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

JEROME A. MILES, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE ON RESCISSIONS AND DEFERRALS

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Secretary, we are pleased to have you and your associates here. As you well understand, the committee is in session to consider the President's message with regard to rescissions and deferrals of money, programs, and personnel which are included in the appropriation bill that was passed by the Congress, and which the President without any complaint signed, on October 21, 1975.

It was quite surprising to me that this action was taken, but before the committee acts in line with the law, I felt that we ought to have you and your associates here, so that the full facts might be developed. (139)