mates reflects a reduction of $21,700 from that amount appropriated in fiscal 1958.

This is a program that seeks to solve those problems that occur as food moves from the farmer's field to the consumer's table. Through this program, in cooperation with private agencies and trade groups, the Department of Agriculture endeavors to develop those kinds of marketing practices that will reduce marketing costs, increase the farmer's return, and heighten the consumer's satisfaction.

All of us are conscious of the increasing spread on costs that exist between the producer and consumer. These are, essentially, marketing or distribution costs, supplemented by costs relating to processing, transportation, etc.

Research in marketing is vitally important to improve handling methods, to cut losses through spoilage, to improve packaging methods, to develop efficient temperature control, and to effect many other constructive marketing methods.

It is my observation that the Department work in this field is in very competent hands. I strongly urge that the problems in this area of marketing be aggressively attacked and supported by all the money necessary to accomplish sound objectives.

It is encouraging to observe that the budget has recommended modest increases for services occurring under inspection, grading and classing, and standardization. The rather substantial increase of $5,389,600 for poultry inspection is undoubtedly attributable to the recently enacted legislation providing for the compulsory inspection of poultry products. And at this point I would like to say that I have been advised that the Department of Agriculture's estimate on costs for poultry inspection perform as being highly accurate.

The fiscal 1959 figure of $693,000 for the inspection of fruits and vegetables is identical to that amount appropriated in fiscal 1958, and I can but suggest that this committee be constantly conscious of the ever-increasing costs associated with this inspection service, and be ever-ready to effect those adjustments in appropriations essential to an efficient exercise of this function.

The budget recommends a reduction in funds for the market news service, and although this reduction is but slight, there are underlying considerations that prove disturbing.

For instance, it appears that the need for the market news service is expanding rather than contracting. This is evidenced by a letter recently directed to me by the Maine Potato Council, a letter in which it was stated that the Maine potato industry has an interest in extending its shipping season of the summer months up to July 31.

There are, I feel sure, other areas of agriculture that are interested in broadening their shipping and marketing programs, and these, if they are to be successful, will very heavily rely on the market news service.

I am informed that the Department of Agriculture has been advised of the National Potato Council's interest in expanding its shipping season, and am further informed that the Department has stated that in the absence of necessary funds, it will be extremely difficult to supply the news service for the extended period.

Mr. Chairman, I request that this committee give approval to those funds essential to the efficient function of the market news service.

In addition, and in particular, I urge the committee to approve such additional funds as will enable the Department of Agriculture to institute a market news service in consonance with the Maine potato industry's effort to expand its shipping season.

Funds for the operation of the Foreign Agricultural Service have been recommended in the same amounts as for fiscal 1958, as pertaining to agricultural attachés. These attachés, working through the Department of Agriculture, have proved of superb assistance in developing markets abroad for American agricultural commodities. They have contributed notably to the effective operation of title I of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 by bringing together interested United States and foreign parties, and, in general, in implementing the operation of this agricultural surplus disposal program.

It is interesting to note that since 1957 there has been a decline in the total number of these attachés-from 442 to 417. Although this is but a nominal reduction in personnel, this committee might well be watchful lest a further contraction in personnel-resulting from reduced appropriations negatively affects the administration of the Foreign Agricultural Service program.

This committee might also be mindful of the high costs associated with retaining highly skilled personnel, maing those adjustments in appropriations that will permit the hiring of that number and quality of attachés required for an efficiently operating attaché program.

The budget recommendations for the Extension Service are with the exception of penalty mail-identical to those of fiscal 1958$50,715,000 for payments to States, and $2,096,540 for administration and coordination.

It is through this Service that the rural development program operates, and $890,000 of this appropriation as recommended would be used for the advancement of this program.

Under the rural development program, the Department of Agriculture in cooperation with other Federal departments carries on extensive investigatory operations in an effort to aid depressed farm areas. Work on this program is now going forward in 30 States, with nearly 100 rural counties taking part in pioneering this new approach to balanced farm, industry, and community development. In my State of Maine, Washington County has, since 1956, been taking part in this operation, and during its participation much progress has been made in analyzing this county's assets and needs. In placing emphasis on the importance of the rural development program, the President, in his farm message, stated:

Though only about 3 years old, the rural development program has already achieved much, and with the increased emphasis planned for the coming year, progress promises to be more rapid in the future.

Mr. Chairman, in consideration of the fact that the Extension Service, in its broadest sense, has proved an effective instrument in the application of improved methods of production, marketing, and family living, I earnestly urge this committee to support the budget recommendation.

Appropriation recommendations for the Agricultural Research Service are except for a slight increase of $500,000 for meat inspection-essentially in tune with appropriations for fiscal 1958.

I might say that I am pleased to see the indicated increase for meat inspection, for such an increase will work toward accommodating the increased costs associated with the ever-expanding services carried out under the meat inspection program.

All of us are familiar with the constructive work being carried out by the agricultural experiment stations, and this record of accomplishment serves as the best recommendation for adequate funds to carry out this laboratory function.

Golden nematode control has proved effective in the past and must be relied upon in the future in controlling a devastating pest that constantly poses as a threat to the farmer's field crops.

It is particularly encouraging to observe that the gypsy moth control program is supported by a recommended appropriation of $2,820,200. We should all remain aware that, as the Department of Agriculture recently reported, a general buildup of the gypsy moth in the Northeastern United States-posing a threat to eastern and southern forests-may be expected in the next 3 or 4 years.

The Department further reported that it is expected that if the previous history of gypsy moth activities is reliable, gypsy moth populations will soon increase, even though incidence of the moth is at a low ebb at the present time. In the absence of chemical control, the gypsy moth would continue to spread and do periodic and continuing damage throughout the territory within its natural range. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge that this committee endorse the recommended appropriations for Agricultural Research Service.

It is unfortunate that the budget has slighted the Soil Conservation Service by suggesting a reduction of $11,780,000 in funds. It is through this program that the farmer is aided in various soil- and water-conservation practices, and, in general, permitted to make those physical adjustments in land that will contribute to a permanently balanced agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, a program so essential to the welfare of agriculture as this service should not be neglected, and I recommend that this committee reexamine the recommended budgetary cut.

At this point I would like to mention that the sum of $2,300,000 has been recommended for use by the Agricultural Research Service for soil and water conservation. During fiscal 1957, for this purpose, the State of Maine received $12,231, and $15,265 in fiscal 1958.

I would like to point out that, in Maine, there is an urgent need for extensive research into the effects on the soil of mechanical equipment used in the production of potatoes. For instance, the introduction to the potato fields of a machine that removes rocks to a depth of about 4 inches raises a question as to whether or not such an operation encourages soil erosion.

In addition, there is an urgent need for machinery to implement a multitude of soil- and water-conservation services, and in the absence of such equipment, the full benefits of such a program will never be realized.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope this committee will approve the $2,300,000 recommended by the budget for soil and water conservation as carried out through the Agricultural Research Service.

The budget recommends $12 million for the special emergency loan program administered by the Farmers' Home Administration. This

figure is the same as that for fiscal 1958 and represents an increase of $2.3 million over fiscal 1957.

Under this program loans up to a total of $65 million may be made up to June 30, 1959, in areas where the Secretary finds a need for credit which cannot be met through other means.

I would like to state that this form of lending aid has proved a material benefit to the farmers in my State of Maine, and I sincerely hope this committee will endorse the budget recommendation. Mr. Chairman, when the House of Representatives approved the appropriation bill providing funds for fiscal 1959 for the Department of Interior and the Forest Service, a cut of $1,050,000 was made in Clarke-McNary funds. Too, no funds were appropriated for tree planting under section 401 of the Agricultural Act of 1956. ClarkeMcNary funds were reduced from $1,308,000 in fiscal 1958 to $258,000 in fiscal 1959.

As you gentlemen know, portions of these Clarke-McNary funds are used in operating forest nurseries in the several States. The committee report stated that this cut could be made because funds available in soil-bank appropriations were adequate for the work.

I appeared before the Subcommittee for Interior and Forest Service Appropriations and strongly urged full support for Clarke-McNary and section 401 funds. The subcommittee did not concur in my recommendations.

In the face of these circumstances, I strongly urge this committee to provide sufficient funds-under the provisions of the soil-bank program to maintain existing programs of forest nurseries in the several States.

Mr. Chairman, the President recommends $100 million for the school-lunch program, and I wish to say that I lend my hearty support to this recommendation.

The House Committee of Agriculture has given considerable study to the Department of Agriculture's administration of the Packer and Stockyards Act. I urge, Mr. Chairman, that your committee give special attention to this item in order that the department may be in a position to fully implement the provisions of this act.

In relation to the agricultural conservation program, I recommend that an appropriation of $250 million be made for fiscal year 1959. Mr. Chairman, before concluding my testimony, I would like to commend the conduct of the National Advisory Committee.

To refresh the committee's mind, I would like to point out that in accordance with title III of the Research and Marketing Act, the Secretary has established a national advisory committee of 11 members, 6 of whom represent producers of their organizations to consult with the Secretary and other appropriate officials of the Department concerning research and service work authorized by the act, and to assist in obtaining the cooperation of producers, farm organizations, industry groups, and Federal and State agencies. This title also provides for the establishment, by the Secretary of appropriate committees including representatives of producers, industry, Government, and science, to assist in effectuating specific research and service programs. The members of this committee make an unselfish contribution of their time, interests, and efforts. They are not deemed to be employees of the United States, and, consequently, they are not entitled to com

pensation. As one might expect, however, the Secretary is authorized to allow their traveling expenses and subsistence expenses associated with such travel.

Being constituted of men who have a firsthand knowledge of those problems which confront agriculture in the field, in the market place. and in the area of transportation, this committee contributes a wealth of assistance to the interests of the Department of Agriculture.

It is my considered opinion that it cannot be challenged that the National Advisory Committee-and its related committees-perform a very valuable function in the operation of our agricultural program. Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee, I wish to express my deep appreciation for this opportunity of presenting testimony before this committee.

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you. We appreciate these statements. Again, we know of your deep interest and your thorough knowledge of the agricultural program.

Mr. McINTIRE. Thank you.

I would perhaps point out that raising the budget constitutes a real problem. Personally, I am of the opinion that defense spending far exceeds what we get for the appropriations, and though I do not think that will necessarily bind us it necessarily poses a real problem. Mr. WHITTEN. I am sure that it does.

I thank you very much.

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1958.

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE AND AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION SERVICE

WITNESS

HON. LESTER R. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. WHITTEN. The committee will come to order.

We have before us our colleague, Hon. Lester R. Johnson of Wisconsin, a member of the Agricultural Legislative Committee. He has worked tirelessly in his years here, and we always welcome him.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the committee for the privilege of appearing before you this afternoon in support of appropriations for the Soil Conservation Service and the agricultural conservation program.

A year ago I appeared before your committee in favor of raising the limitation which had been in the law for a number of years stating that no participant shall receive more than $1,500. It was my suggestion that this limitation be raised and the committee approved a $2,500 limitation. This figure was retained by the conference committee and was included in the law signed by the President. I hope the committee will see fit to retain this $2,500 limitation rather than lowering it to the previous figure.

From observations I have made in my district the past fall, I can state the new limitation has already helped, to a large degree, in the erection of structures throughout the Ninth District, to stop further progress of gullies on many of the farms. It was my pleasure to it several of the structures erected as a result of this amendment,