Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

v.43

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS p+. S
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Man

[blocks in formation]

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, ORGANIZATIONS,
AND INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS

47-204

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1965

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas, Chairman

ALBERT THOMAS, Texas
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, Ohio
JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi
GEORGE W. ANDREWS, Alabama
JOHN J. ROONEY, New York
JOHN E. FOGARTY, Rhode Island
ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida
OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana
JOE L. EVINS, Tennessee

EDWARD P. BOLAND, Massachusetts
WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky
DANIEL J. FLOOD, Pennsylvania
WINFIELD K. DENTON, Indiana
TOM STEED, Oklahoma

GEORGE E. SHIPLEY, Illinois
JOHN M. SLACK, JR., West Virginia
JOHN J. FLYNT, JR., Georgia

NEAL SMITH, Iowa

ROBERT N. GIAIMO, Connecticut

JULIA BUTLER HANSEN, Washington
CHARLES S. JOELSON, New Jersey
JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York
JOHN J. MCFALL, California
W. R. HULL, JR., Missouri

D. R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS, Florida
JEFFERY COHELAN, California
THOMAS G. MORRIS, New Mexico
EDWARD J. PATTEN, New Jersey
CLARENCE D. LONG, Maryland
JOHN O. MARSH, JR., Virginia
ROBERT B. DUNCAN, Oregon
SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois

BILLIE S. FARNUM, Michigan

FRANK T. BOW, Ohio

CHARLES R. JONAS, North Carolina
MELVIN R. LAIRD, Wisconsin
ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, Michigan
GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB, California
JOHN J. RHODES, Arizona

WILLIAM E. MINSHALL, Illinois
ROBERT H. MICHEL, Illinois
SILVIO O. CONTE, Massachusetts
ODIN LANGEN, Minnesota
BEN REIFEL, South Dakota
GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin
HOWARD W. ROBISON, New York
GARNER E. SHRIVER, Kansas
JOSEPH M. MCDADE, Pennsylvania
MARK ANDREWS, North Dakota

KENNETH SPRANKLE, Clerk and Staff Director

(II)

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1965.

SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION AND COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

WITNESS

HON. MARK ANDREWS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. WHITTEN. The committee will be in order.

We are pleased to have with us our colleague from North Dakota, Hon. Mark Andrews, who is interested in agricultural matters. We will be glad to hear your statement.

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to make the strongest plea for overriding the Bureau of the Budget's recommendation of a $20 million cut in the 1966 appropriations for the Soil Conservation Service technical assistance to farmers in local soil conservation districts.

This cut would jeopardize one of America's most priceless heritages its soil. Farmers have made great strides in the past two decades toward preserving our soil largely through the technical assistance afforded them by the Soil Conservation Service. Very seldom today do we see the duststorms such as those that were prevalent in the thirties, because of tree planting, grass seeding, and better crop residue use, all done under the guidelines laid down by the technicians of the SCS.

The great natural resources of our country are not the responsibility or the property of any one segment of our country or of any particular generation. Every citizen of the United States-past, present, and future is dependent on those resources for their livelihood. Each generation has the responsibility to future generations not only to preserve those resources, but if possible to enhance them for generations yet unborn.

By reducing this Federal support for soil and water conservation by such a drastic amount, it would suggest to everyone that this is not a high-priority program intimately related to the prevention of soil erosion and the maintenance of a strong nation. Thus, the momentum for conservation would be reduced.

To set up a revolving fund would in itself be costly. Procedures and governmental priorities would have to be developed to collect and disburse the private funds and landowners otherwise eager to install conservation programs would be discouraged by the multitude of redtape under the new proposal of the Budget Bureau.

I also wholeheartedly recommend the increases in appropriations for the Cooperative Extension Service. The additional funds requested would permit them to more effectively meet their obligations in each of the individual States. They would cover increased salaries and operating costs, and in this particular area the Extension Service has not received the same increases in appropriations for increases in

(1)

salaries that have been accorded other Federal agencies. While our State legislature has taken care of their share of the burden, it is left to the Federal Government to give additional assistance for their part of the total budget.

Also included in the request are funds for the area development programs, for home economics work with low-income families, and for marketing and utilization. The people of our State, as in many other States, have great need for all of these services. While our Government seems to have plenty of money for aid to foreign nations, assistance to our own citizens sometimes lags far behind.

The economy of our Nation depends upon the farm. Here today we have two vital agencies-the Soil Conservation Service and the Cooperative Extension Service-which the administration, strangely, wants to curtail. The services of both are ultimately for the betterment of every segment of our society. It, therefore, is in the best interests of all of our citizens to utilize their services to the fullest extent and to give them our wholehearted support.

Mr. Chairman, I might add, I am an actual farmer. I have spent a lot more time farming than I have being a Member of Congress. I feel personally very deeply about the Soil Conservation Service. Farming is a way of life, as many people have said, but, also, the farmer is awfully busy. He is putting in a crop, trying to make enough income to meet his family needs, and all too often even the best farmers have a tendency to postpone and forget, unless they have a technician from the Soil Conservation Service to come out and point out how much they can benefit and their children can benefit by putting these conservation practices into effect. So I think this is extremely important.

Mr. WHITTEN. May I say we certainly appreciate your appearance. In the relatively short time you have been here I think every Member of Congress has become aware of your deep interest in agriculture. This committee itself has always supported soil conservation in all its aspects.

I think I should emphasize that the proposed change in the Soil Conservation Service would require legislation, and the money for the continuation of the program on the current basis is in the budget. I feel the committee will be sympathetic to continuing to fund SCS at the current program level. The biggest danger that this program faces is the recommendation that the Agricultural Conservation Program be cut $100 million next year. If that should occur-and I hope it will not-the Soil Conservation Service would be reduced by three and a half million dollars in administrative funds, 530 employees, and two-thirds of the practices which they now supervise.

The $20 million reduction and the establishment of the reducing fund would require legislation. So far as I have been able to ascertain nobody has yet introduced such legislation. So, as it now appears, the committee will not have to deal with that matter.

Mr. ANDREWS. I am happy that Mr. Gordon has not found anyone that would introduce this legislation.

Mr. WHITTEN. I notice he is leaving the Bureau of the Budget, but I do not know of any agricultural person taking over for him.

Mr. ANDREWS. It would be nice if they could find someone with an agricultural background. I would like to point out the support we have in our area for the increases in appropriations for the Cooper

ative Extension Service. This I think is extremely important. Farmers, again, are a diverse industry. Research plays a large part in the success of all industry in our country but unless we can bring the results of research that we conduct Beltsville and other locations out to the individual farmer on the land, it does not do much good.

If the chairman would allow me, I would like to submit for the record now a letter that I requested to be written to me by Arthur Schulz, the director of our Cooperative Extension Service in North Dakota; he is the chairman of the legislative subcommittee of the directors of the Extension Services from all 50 States. His letter is very much to the point.

Mr. WHITTEN. We will be glad to have the letter included in the record.

Mr. ANDREWS. This is a short letter. Rather than for me to speak as a nonexpert witness, I thought that the committee would be much better served by having his statement be made a part of the record. Mr. WHITTEN. We will be glad to have that.

(The letter follows:)

Representative MARK ANDREWS,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE,
Fargo, N. Dak., April 23, 1965.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE ANDREWS: The directors of the Cooperative Extension Services will respectfully request an increase of $11,500,000 in Federal funds for the Cooperative Extension Services for fiscal year 1965-66 when they appear before the Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee of the House of Representatives next week. These funds are requested to provide additional resources required to permit concentrated efforts to be directed toward specific high priority problem areas. I wish to outline for you some of the specific basis for our request and the reasons why these additional funds are urgently needed.

Our first request is for $3 million of additional funds for increased salaries and operating costs. May I respectfully urge that this request for these additional funds be given the highest priority possible.

The programs of the Cooperative Extension Service in North Dakota and in all other States are rapidly changing to meet the specific rapidly changing needs of the total State. No longer can we best serve the State or its agricultural segment by concentrating only on production problems. The problems of marketing and distribution, the social and economic relationships between the rural and urban elements of our community, and the understanding of the basic factors affecting and determining public policy, are only a few of the array of problems our extension staff is being asked to assist with by increasing numbers of citizens in our State and in all States. The demand from the people of North Dakota for the Cooperative Extension Service to provide basic educational data from which a major tax decision was made last fall is only one example of this increasing and expanded demand for services from our staff. These problems as well as the traditional production problems are becoming increasingly specific in nature and require staff competence gained only by increasing formal academic and in-service training and by the experience gained only on the job.

The competition for the services of both qualified new graduates and competently trained existing staff members has become increasingly keen. During the past year we have regularly had from 5 to as many 8 vacancies on our staff which numbers only 150 professional people. At the same time, we had few if any new applications from qualified personnel from which these vacancies could be filled. Because of the nature of the responsibilities outlined above, the Cooperative Extension Service cannot risk employing other than highly qualified personnel. We urgently request the allocation of additional funds to permit the Cooperative Extension Service to attain a more competitive salary position for the staff it needs.

« PředchozíPokračovat »