dent for this procedure as the most profitable industries and the best organized labor unions operate by administered prices and wages.

3. Production and marketing quotas based on bushels, pounds and balesnot on acres. Among other things this would make it possible for the farm family to hold down its annual cash outlay and reduce their risk since it would not be necessary to overcrop the land as has been the experience with acreage allotments. Farmers would be permitted to carry over any excess production to the next marketing year and apply it to that year's marketing quota. The same would be true if he underproduced, as he would be permitted to add the amount he did not produce to his next year's marketing quota.

4. Write off CCC stocks as bought and paid for and convert them into a national stockpile to be disposed of only under specific circumstances as outlined by Congress. Do not permit them to any longer depress current farm prices.

5. Decide what is the national need in exports and what farmers can sell in export without subsidy programs. Any excess above that farmers can sell in export without subsidy programs and which is needed in furtherance of United States foreign policy should be charged to the general public and paid for out of the Treasury. Had there been no surpluses the United States would have sought increased production in order to meet its obligations as a leader in a hungry world. Farmers should no more be asked to produce at cut rates for food and fiber as a part of our national defense program than should manufacturers of airplanes and missiles.

6. In developing a soil conservation program, decide what is in the farmer's immediate monetary interest and what is required by the people as a whole who need land conserved for future food. The proposed program will necessarily result in more good, tillable, idle land than the United States has ever had. Someone must take care of it and not let it run down. In the national interest its fertility should be increased. That someone must be the man on the land. But who should bear the cost? Obviously some of the expense should be borne by the present generation of farmers and their heirs. Even if they don't use it, the value of their farms will decrease if the land deteriorates. However, a large part of the expense of soil conservation for posterity should be borne by the general public through taxes.

To survive as operators of family-type farms, farmers must become as disciplinary with themselves as labor union members and as realistic as big business. The proposed program has that effect and realistic approach.

ATTACHMENT D

AN APPEAL TO SAVE THE MEAT-INSPECTION PROGRAM

The meat-inspection program is now in the greatest crisis of its half-century existence. This Federal service, which has earned the respect of every group in American life for its steadfast and effective protection of the consumer and livestock producers, is already unable to fulfill its job and is in danger of deteriorating further.

In recent years, appropriations have not kept pace with the increase in the Meat Inspection Division's workload, which rose with continuing increases in the number of animals slaughtered and the decentralization of the meat industry. The Division has shifted its employees back and forth; borrowed veterinarians from other sections of the Department of Agriculture and taken other temporary expedients to meet the severe shortage of inspectors.

But now this system of patchwork is reaching the breaking point. Last year some of our organizations reported to Congress instances of slowdowns in meat production in some meat plants in 18 cities, because insufficient inspectors were available. Now, this problem has worsened. The 1957 slowdowns lasting a few hours have now increased 20 and more percent cuts in slaughtering lasting a week at a time in some plants.

The consequences are serious. They are a definite threat to consumer protection, further cuts in farmers' incomes, more layoffs in packinghouse workers' jobs, and further reduction in meatpacking firms' profits.

Unfortunately, the President's budget for the fiscal year 1959 promises no improvement. It actually carries a request for $1,392,000 less than the budget of fiscal year 1958. The $17,326,000 requested in the fiscal year 1959 budget would restrict the Meat Inspection Division to a staff even smaller than it maintained in the current fiscal year. This is blatantly inadequate.

Actually, the Division needs an increase of 412 inspectors. This is apparent from the following: In fiscal year 1957, the Division had 3,023 employees. For fiscal year 1958, it demonstrated the need for 192 more employees, but funds were not made available. In fiscal year 1959, another 3-percent increase in meat plants needing inspection is expected, and a 1.5-percent increase in inspectors, or 48 additional inspectors, will be required. Therefore, the Meat Inspection Division, in order to carry out its functions adequately, must have 3,263 inspectors (3,023+192+48). But the Division will have only 2,851 inspectors on July 1,

1958.

The Meat Inspection Division, therefore, needs an appropriation for fiscal year 1959, of $19,202,184, not of $17,326,000, as the budget indicates.

We firmly believe such an appropriation imperative if the meat inspection program is to be saved. Economy in government is one thing; pennypinching which endangers the health and livelihood of tens of millions of Americans, is another. We urge the administration to change its budget estimate. We urge Congress to appropriate the truly needed amount of $19,202,184. The health and economic welfare of consumers, farmers, packinghouse workers, and meatpacking industry are at stake.

Thomas J. Lloyd and Patrick E. Gorman, President and SecretaryTreasurer, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen (AFL-CIO); Radford Hall, Executive Secretary, American National Cattlemen's Association; Homer R. Davison, President, American Meat Institute: James G. Patton, President, the National Farmers Union; Herschel D. Newsom, Master, the National Grange; John A. Killick, Executive Secretary, National Independent Meat Packers Association; Dr. R. A. Hendershott, Secretary, United States Livestock Sanitary Association; E. F. Forbes, President and General Manager, Western States Meat Packers Association.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Vance, we appreciate your appearing before this committee and giving us your views.

There is no question that your organization has the welfare of the farmers at heart in the work that they are doing to try to bring about recognition for the people living on the lands and the problems that they have, providing proper income and security for those people. There has never been any doubt in the minds of the members of this committee.

This committee on a number of occasions has restored funds as you have stated in your statement on the conservation program.

At times we face a rather difficult fight when we have gone on the floor of the House. Sometimes it has been rather close. But it is interesting to note that we have been fairly successful on the floor of the House in restoring funds that we think are needed to carry on the operation of the program.

We regret that some people have seen fit to cast reflections upon the agricultural conservation program by inferring that a number of the practices that were carried out are practices which are of a temporary nature and giving the impression to the people that it is a type of boondoggling which is far from the truth.

Certainly as far as these practices are concerned, it is to be borne in mind that farmers contribute more than they receive from the Federal Government for these practices and I am certain that no farmer will carry on a practice that he had to make a contribution to that is strictly a boondoggling operation.

Secondly, it should be borne in mind that no payments are made for any of these practices unless they are put into operation on the land, so that it does bring this right directly back to the land itself and the farming practices that it encourages.

The committee has been somewhat concerned when we have fluctuations in the amount of money for these programs. We have 1 year a large appropriation, the next year when it is cut in half, a program that has proven its worth; it is rather disrupting to have that sort of situation take place.

We realize, of course, as you have mentioned in your statement, that the costs of the Department of Agriculture have been running very high. I am one of those that do not regret the expenditure for the Department of Agriculture, but I do wish we were getting more return for the money which we are spending. I think, if we were, we would not have this situation where our farm income has dropped to the extent that it has, and I cannot help but note that the same administration is concerned about the recession for people who are working in industry, and it is proper they should be concerned.

However, I am very much disappointed that they seem to take a different attitude when it comes to dealing with the people upon the land.

We do appreciate your coming before the committee and the fine work that your organization is doing.

Mr. VANCE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Vance, as you well know, and the other members of your fine organization, our soil conservation service was established by legislation in the year 1935. Since that time, this particular service, in my opinion, has as many achievements to its credit as any other section of the Department of Agriculture.

You personally know of the fine work that this service provides as far as reducing damage by floods and sedimentation and the conserving of our soil and water resources.

At the time that Assistant Secretary Peterson appeared before our committee in behalf of Soil Conservation Service, together with Don Williams, the Director, we were informed that the budget for the fiscal year 1959 requested $14 million for watershed protection and that for flood prevention the amount requested was $13,220,000.

The members of this subcommittee were very much concerned and they went into detail at great length with Secretary Peterson and also Mr. Williams concerning the entire program and especially these two items. Every member of this subcommittee is vitally interested in our Soil Conservation Service.

I thought you would be interested, Mr. Vance, to know that today we have received an amendment from the Bureau of the Budget for these two particular sections of the Soil Conservation Service. And the amendment that has been sent up to our chairman, Mr. Whitten, calls for $24 million now for watershed protection instead of $14 million, an increase of $10 million.

The amendment also provides for $18 million for flood prevention instead of $13,220,000.

Now, I want you to know, and Mr. Johnson and every member of your fine organization, that in my opinion as just one member of this committee, that this action was brought about as a result of the action of Mr. Whitten, and the other members of this subcommittee pursuing this matter at great length with the officials of the Department when they appeared before our subcommittee.

Mr. VANCE. Congressman Natcher, may I say that certainly your very capable chairman and the members of this committee are certainly to be commended for the fine action that you have taken in bringing this needed change about in those budget figures.

Mr. NATCHER. There are a number of sections of this budget that we have gone into at great length and in great detail because every member of the committee is vitally interested in the American farmer and I knew that you would be interested in receiving the report that just shortly after we had concluded the testimony concerning soil conservation we received this amendment from the Bureau of the Budget and I say to you it is not here a day too soon.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITTEN. I have been impressed by your presentation through the years. I have frequently told Mr. Baker and Mr. Patton that there have been times when I thought the Farmers Union was in error, but all the errors I had ever seen were on the side of the farmer and not errors of the nature that I see some others make on occasion. I note a recent speech by the Secretary, and I do not think it is news for me to say that I have differed with him many times, but I note where he said that the per capita income of farmers from all sources was at an alltime high. The "all sources" means work that he has been doing in town. But I looked further and saw his figure that was higher than ever before, a total of what he got from the farm and from what he got working in town, was $993 per year.

It made me believe that, not only is the farmer getting less from selling his farm commodities than in a long, long time, but these folks in town must be paying him at a much lower rate than they are paying anybody else.

The total of those 2 should certainly be better than $993.

Now the Secretary is very proud of that, but it looks to me like we ought to get the Department of Labor to investigate the town work that the farmer has done because he could not be getting much money from it.

I want to say again that we and the American farmers appreciate the support that you give and the efforts you make at publicizing these erroneous figures that are frequently released by this Department of Agriculture.

I will quote from this speech. This is a copy of the speech made by the Secretary of Agriculture at Minneapolis. On page 7 he makes this statement: "Income per farm on farms last year, including from all sources, was the highest income per person on record, up 2 percent from 1951 the previously high year." That is where the total was $993.

Now he does not tell-if you want to tell a fair story he wouldthat the income per farm is much lower as compared with the investment and other costs and things of that sort, and the income to the farm segment of the population is lower. He makes the further statement that the level of living on farms is higher today than ever before, that farm exports in fiscal 1957 set a new record of $4.7 billion, 4 percent higher than fiscal 1953.

For about 3 or 4 years, we tried to get him to sell in world trade. He finally got around to it, but he also includes Public Law 480

commodities where we are virtually giving them away by selling for foreign currency.

Now he makes this statement: "The postwar down trend in prices which started in 1951 has been stopped."

Now catch the significance of that.

The downward trend has stopped. He does not tell you that it stopped 20 percent lower than it was in 1951.

Then he says the buildup of surpluses in the Commodity Credit Corporation's hands has been reversed. He has stopped the trend by this great selling program under Public Law 480, where you sell for foreign currencies. But he does not say that when he stopped that upward trend he stopped at a level three times higher than in 1952. The Government investment was three times higher than when he took it over.

In other words, he stopped the upward trend after the Commodity Credit Corporation had on hand about $7.2 billion commodities, when he inherited it he had only $2.5 billion.

Now that is the kind of figures that are hard to answer when he has the press and everybody else picking this up and carrying it as the whole story.

Your problems and way of disseminating information are similar to ours. Lots of folks do not want to carry the side of the story that you do. But we do commend you for your efforts and the good job that you do in many circles in getting this disseminated. Definitely the American public has been sold an erroneous set of facts by truths and half truths and things which do not carry the true picture, and I cite those figures to show it.

The Secretary could say that was not his fault, our investigation shows that the Information Service of the Department has spent about $48,000 in preparing speeches for the Secretary and disseminating those speeches. Of course as long as that is true, it could be that he would say this erroneous information came from there.

It is my personal feeling that we should put a stop to the Information Service of the Department of Agriculture preparing speeches for distribution which many times are political in nature, which many times show just part of the picture as they do here.

If such a staff is needed, it strikes me that it should be in the immediate office of the Secretary, where it clearly is one group and not a group whose primary purpose is to disseminate the results of research. and other work of the Department of Agriculture.

I do thank you again for your appearance before the committee. Mr. VANCE. May I say, Mr. Chairman, leaving that we want to commend your committee for authorizing and publishing the report on Government subsidies which I believe is prepared by Congressman Marshall.

Mr. WHITTEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. VANCE. This kind of information is in constant demand and I think it is information that should be brought to the attention of every citizen in this land.

Mr. WHITTEN. I would like to say that it was prepared by Mr. Marshall, under his supervision.

However, I would like to point out that in that work he had the assistance of the Library of Congress and the assistance of the staff of the committee as well as records of the committee.

22911-58-pt. 5--16