been bankrupt 10 years ago if research in production had not enabled him to improve his production. He has not improved it fast enough to keep up with the increased cost, but in the absence of this research, he would have gone out of the window years ago. Mr. Roor. That is correct. In my area, I could not continue to operate my farm on what I considered an average crop 10 years ago. I have to have a better-than-average crop to support my family and pay my operating expenses. Mr. WHITTEN. And this cost factor looks like it is going to keep on going up. All you can do is to try to keep up with the research. Mr. Roor. That is right, sir. We are very dependent upon research. Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you again, Mr. Root. STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE J. F. BREEDING, OF KANSAS The committee is in receipt of a letter from our colleague, Mr. Breeding, which will be placed in the record at this point: Hon. JAMIE L. WHITTEN, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., March 12, 1958. Chairman, Department of Agricultural Subcommittee, House Committee on Appropriations, United States House of Representatives. DEAR MR. WHITTEN: I should like to take this opportunity, with your permission, for the record of these hearings, to commend Mr. Floyd Root, president of the National Association of Wheat Growers, for the grand job he is doing on behalf of the Nation's wheat farmers, and to lend my full support to the association's recommendations, especially in two instances. The establishment of a national crops physiology laboratory for a basic-studies attack on crop physiology and production problems, which beset all farmers, would, I believe, make a tremendous contribution to our agricultural economy. In addition, it is my recommendation, along with the association, that the physical milling plant equipment of the Kansas State College, department of milling, destroyed by fire in 1957, be reactivated as soon as possible. Many thanks for your consideration. With kindest personal regards, I am, Sincerely yours, J. FLOYD BREEDING, Member of Congress. NATIONAL ARBORETUM WITNESS FREDERIC P. LEE, NATIONAL ARBORETUM ADVISORY COUNCIL Mr. WHITTEN. Our next witness this afternoon is Mr. Frederic P. Lee of the National Arboretum Council. Mr. Lee, we will be glad to have your statement. Mr. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Frederic P. Lee. My residence is Bethesda, Md. I appear here as Chairman of the National Arboretum Advisory Council, which was established by Congress in the same act that established the Arboretum in 1927. The members are appointed by the Secretary. They serve without compensation. Perhaps I should for your record give the reporter a list of the members. Mr. WHITTEN. We will be glad to have that in the record. LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ARBORETUM ADVISORY COUNCIL Ovid Butler, Washington, D. C. G. Harris Collingwood, Washington, Mrs. Walter Douglas, Phoenix, Ariz. Maj. Gen. U. S. Grant III, Washington, Dr. H. Harold Hume, Gainesville, Fla. Dr. William J. Robbins, New York, Dr. Knowles A. Ryerson, Berkeley, Hon. Lloyd C. Stark, Louisiana, Mo. Frederic P. Lee, Esq., chairman, Mr. LEE. The estimates for this year were cut, the arboretum appropriation, $185,000. While the council thinks that the cut was wholly unjustified, nevertheless, we are not appearing here to ask you to restore that money. That may be somewhat of a mild shock to you. Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Lee, I would just like to say that we have been listening to witnesses all week. Your statement is the first one of that nature we have had. I am not finding fault with the others. We all have our problems. But it is unusual, and I think it should be commented on. Mr. LEE. We have reasons for that, and I would like to state them very briefly. The Department of Agriculture has had the arboretum now for 31 years. During that period, it has failed to complete the physical structures and development that are necessary to make it a going institution. It has not established a staff that is adequate to do the scientific work that should be done; and it has not even a matter which Congress seems to think important, seems in fact to think is of considerable importance, it has not been able to get it in a condition where it could be opened regularly to the public, for those who might want to look at the living plant collections. My reasons are these: we came before Congress in 1955, in connection with the 1956 fiscal year appropriation, and asked the Congress to do something about this arboretum-either abolish it or get it going. Congress responded by increasing the estimates from $161,000 to an appropriation of $372,000, with the idea, Let's get this thing moving. The following year, in connection with the 1957 appropriation, we again came before the Congress. The Congress then increased the appropriation some $372,000 to $500,000; and with that certain roads. have been built and equipment, service building, a good deal of development has taken place-nearly $250,000 to $275,000, of that money has been for physical development. We have done that twice. The council does not propose to come before this committee or the Senate committee again and make a continuing practice of asking for appropriations in excess of the amounts that the Department is willing to estimate. We think two things about that: first, it is unfair to the Congress, you gentlemen, to be asked to take the responsibility of making appropriations that the Department itself is unwilling to ask for. There is a limit to that sort of thing. Second, we do not propse to be used as a cat's paw for coming up here and getting appropriations in excess of the Department's budget ceiling so that it can have more moneys than that ceiling provides. Those are our reasons. That does not mean that we think that cut is justified. I would like to make a few facts clear here. The effect on the arboretum of that cut, if you gentlemen did not decide for other reasons to restore it, would be that the greenhouse facilities that were planned for this year-I do not mean any ornamental greenhouse, I mean for breeding, propogation, and testing and so forth-the finishing the grading of the roadsides and the planning of them, for which you supplied the money for the construction of them, and the completion of some other physical items, would be further delayed. When you look at the period of 31 years, the addition of 1 more year's delay is not really important in the whole situation, however strongly we may feel or however important it may be to those who are engaged in the work at the arboretum. The cut is symptomatic of the attitude of the Department toward the arboretum, toward work that will serve that great bulk of the city and surburban people that are interested in gardening as a hobby--and I suppose it is the largest hobby in the country, far and away. Whatever the Department may say, its actions show that research in ornamentals is not a thing it believes is valuable. It has no place, or at least only a very small place, in the conception of the Department, which apparently is limited to the farmer on the farm. I will not comment on that, but we do want to go into this: the facts as to why this cut was made. You probably know that better than I do anyway. The Department determined that there should be an increase in utilization research to $5,300,000 this year. Most of that was to come from new money; but $805,000 was to come from cuts in existing appropriations or estimates. That $805,000 was taken partly out of animal husbandry, partly out of soil conservation, and partly out of the agricultural engineering. The largest chunk, however, was taken out of the crops research Division of the Agricultural Research Service. That amounted to $406,000 of the cut. That Division has 12 branches in it, of which the arboretum is only one. They did not attempt to show the necessity for the cut. They did not attempt to spread it equitably all over the sections, but they did it selectively. They took $116,000 out of tungoil and $50,000 out of sugar, $50,000 out of ornamental work for florists, and $185,000 out of the arboretum. In other words, almost half of it was taken out of the arboretum. Nothing was taken from the pioneering research branch, cereals branch, cotton branch, crop protection branch, forest and range branch, fruit and nuts branch, or the new crops branch. I think that illustrates well enough the Department's attitude toward the work of the Arboretum. It indicates a lack of interest in the Department toward the Arboretum. Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Lee, you may recall that in the last 2 years when you have appeared before this committee, we indicated to you that they felt that if the Congress took action and provided more funds, that it would provide an administrative direction to the Department of Agriculture, and in order that that would expedite that work at the Aboretum in a little more rapid fashion. This committee went along with the suggestion because the committee is aware of the work that is being done out at the Arboretum. We are very much interested in the Arboretum and so this year it was quite a disappointment to this committee when the Department saw fit, in spite of that legislative commission, to come up with a reduced figure, which would delay the completion of the work in the Arboretum. As one member of this committee, I felt that the lack of attention that they were giving to the Arboretum was done partly for the purpose of feeling that the committee would just go along and provide more funds, and I think maybe that you have somewhat the same conclusion that we have. Mr. LEE. We certainly have. Mr. MARSHALL. Unless the Department does take a realistic attitude, we are going to be going along for a large number of years before we will see the completion of it. While the committee did put in additional funds to expedite the development of the Arboretum, we realize that there are a number of construction items out there that will require a larger appropriation than we have been able to put in in a piecemeal basis. I wish to commend you for coming up before the committee as you have this year and making the statement that you have made. I hope that what you have said and what the future action that this committee takes will be in the line of hastening a realization of the Department of the fact so that they will come up with a proper attitude in attempting to complete the Arboretum. Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Andersen ? Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am in full agreement with you on what you have just expressed. I feel that in the National Arboretum, we will have in the future something very worthwhile for the Nation's Capital, and I would like to join you in commending Mr. Lee for taking up his time in coming before this subcommittee year after year and calling attention to the need for it. Mr. LEE. I would like to add two comments, and they, I think, should be kept in mind. The Arboretum is not a local institution. Its work would serve horticulture nationally, not merely as a local display or educational place. Mr. ANDERSEN. I agree with you fully on that. I know even the people back in my district in southwestern Minnesota, a good many of them come to Washington every year, and I believe that thousands of them would take the opportunity to go to see the National Arboretum as one of the high points of their visit here. Therefore, you are entirely right: it is a national affair. It is not a local affair. Mr. MARSHALL. And what they are doing out there in the propagation of the new varieties of azaleas and camellias is certainly an outstanding piece of work. There is no question about that. Mr. LEE. Another thing I want to say is this: You gentlemen are very helpful, and as you said, sir, you went along and made appropriations of $500,000 in order to get this institution going. I think it is perfectly clear from the record of the hearings and your reports that you established a policy that you expected to be carried out administratively. The very action here by the Department in cutting those estimates is certainly in disregard of the policy that I believe this committee and the Senate established. I will not say in defiance-that would be too strong a word, but it is certainly in disregard of it. What the remedy for that sort of a situation is you gentlemen know better than I do. The Council is not a lobbying organization and does not purport to be a lobbying organization. We are established to advise the Secretary as honestly as we can. I do not think there is much to add-I might suggest this: Frequently people want to know what an arboretum is supposed to do, what kind of research work. The Advisory Council prepared last October through a committee and adopted a Statement on Research Activities of the United States National Arboretum stating what the Council thought on this subject. There are many able research men on the Council. That report the Council itself printed, not the Department. It may be desirable-if you see fit-to put the first nine pages of that report into the record. Each of those nine pages probably would amount to only half a page in your printed hearings. It might be that you want to add that. Mr. ANDERSEN. I think it would be very pertinent, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MARSHALL. We will be pleased to accept it. (The above-mentioned report follows.) STATEMENT ON RESEARCH ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL ARBORETUM (Adopted by the National Arboretum Advisory Council, October 7, 1957) L. INTRODUCTION When the National Arboretum was established in 1927, and at several times in the 30 years since, statements have been made covering its objectives and research activities. In a comprehensive statement these were summed up by the Advisory Council in a communication, dated March 19, 1947, and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan. This statement, hereto attached, still applies (appendix I). At the same time a 5-year program for development of research facilities was proposed by the Council. This was approved by the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of the Budget, and Appropriations Committees of both House and Senate of the Congress. Funds for the initiation of this 5-year program were appropriated. Had the balance of the intended appropriation been provided from year to year, the program as outlined in 1947 would have been fully implemented and by this time (1957) would have been well underway. For unknown reasons, the Department of Agriculture did not see fit to request the subsequent yearly allotments under the 5-year plan, in spite of congressional criticisms for not doing so. The program, as outlined and approved, has lagged because of limited appropriations, and accomplishments in consequence have been limited. In the 10 years that have passed since the statement of 1947, there have been developments, both inside and outside the Department of Agriculture, that make imperative an even greater emphasis on getting the program, as outlined, underway. Extensive developments in home building, the changing over of rural into urban areas, an increase in leisure time, and the enlargement of interest in the recreational aspects and values of ornamental horticulture, have greatly increased the need for applicable information in this field. Interest, too, in the beautification of roadsides, the development of parks, parkways, and recreational areas, has increased manyfold. Intimate, workable knowledge of the |