committee. I would like to say in prefacing my short statement here that we feel that research is a very important program in this conservation because with the proper research many more accomplishments can be made with the same number of dollars. We know that industry spends millions of dollars for research, and we feel that, with more research, much more can be accomplished. We feel research is a very important program.

As this committee knows from our past appearances before you, we have made a thorough study of immediate and long-range needs for soil- and water-conservation research. We have recommended meeting these needs over a period of years. Our grassroots survey of district governing bodies showed emphatic support for the stand we have taken for meeting these research needs. Through action taken at our recent convention, they instructed us to urge the Congress to study the long-range program of soil- and water-conservation research requirements developed in 1956 by our association as a basis for annual appropriations. Funds available for research in this field continnue to fall below the level programed for the 10-year period. It will require an increase of $7,038,000 for the coming year to catch up with the program.

The lag behind the program recommended by the association in 1956 is getting more serious because of rising costs. Reports coming from some State associations indicate that the level of research has actually decreased in some areas instead of being increased as recommended. We urge the Congress to consider this fact in considering the budget for the coming year.

Commend the Congress for providing funds for construction of soiland water- conservation research facilities at Oxford, Miss., Morris, Minn., Watkinsville, Ga., and Phoenix, Ariz. These facilities will be ineffective, however, without ample funds for their staffing and operation. We urge an increase of at least $1,500,000 above the budget estimate for 1959 to complete and equip these installations and start to staff them. Without the proper appropriations, these facilities will not accomplish their purposes.

Congress should consider appropriating funds to establish additional major research facilities for soil and water conservation in the East and the West. They have a major problem on the Pacific coast as well as on the eastern seaboard in the event the multi-million-dollar program proposed by the administration should become available, and we certainly urge Congress to explore all possibilities that these muchneeded two facilities be taken care of out of these appropriations. Details on this and other items were included in the report of our research committee. Rather than take your time, Mr. Chairman, to read this today, we have a copy for the record, if you should like one. In summary, we are asking your committee to make substantial increases in appropriations over the proposed budget for technical assistance to districts for watershed protection, for ACP, and for soil- and water-conservation research. In past years, when we have made similar recommendations, we usually get into a discussion with you about where such additional funds might come from.

The 1959 budget proposes an advance authorization of $450 million for the conservation reserve part of the soil bank in 1959. This is $125 million more than was authorized for 1958.

Our grassroots survey revealed a very low farmer interest in the conservation reserve. Many district governing bodies suggested the program be abolished. Others reported that it had resulted in some beneficial changes in land use in their area. Sixty-five percent suggested a decrease in appropriations in 1959 over 1958 for the conservation reserve.

If the district governing bodies had to make the decisions on appropriating funds for the various aspects of the soil- and water-conservation effort, Mr. Chairman, it is quite apparent as to what their course of action would be.

We will be glad to try to answer any questions that you gentlemen would like to ask us.

Mr. WHITTEN. Gentlemen, we appreciate these presentations, and know of your long-time interest in soil-conservation work in the districts. I also wish to commend you for the objective way in which you have looked at the soil programs and the way your members have looked at them. When I say "members" I mean those people in the various districts and the objective way in which they have made their reports on the values of the various soil-conservation activities of the Department.

There is one thing that I think I should say here. I think perhaps I discussed it with all of you before, but for the record I would like to discuss this 5-percent provision where, at the county level, you can transfer 5 percent of the ACP funds to the SCS for technical assistance.

For what it is worth, I was on this committee back years ago during the period when the ACP was training is own tecehnicians. You had two sets.

We had many examples uncovered by investigations of the committee where you would have an engineer from the SCS draw up plans for a dam or some other structure and ACP would pay for it until some farmer or some layman approved it. It led to a bad situation.

The committee, and it was approved by the Congress, took the position that, since SCS did have skilled technicians, certainly it was unsound to have ACP having farmer technicians approving the work of SCS technicians in a field where they had no special training at all.

This committee, supported by the Congress, brought about a change in that and took the view that SCS should do the technical work for the ACP. On the other hand, the ACP supporters naturally did not want to pay for technical assistance that they did not need or want. As a result, to keep the ACP from getting back to paying its own people, we put this 5 percent provision in there.

In the last year or two I have had a lot of letters from ACP people wanting to stop this practice and they want to give the SCS the money. I have had many letters from SCS people who wanted to give you the 5 percent direct. It is my judgment, from some 16 years here in the Congress, if this 5 percent were given to you direct, in addition to the budget amount proposed, within 3 years you would get just a certain amount of money and you would not have any 5 percent. The way Congress works, you get so much money each year and then somebody hits on a compromise figure and that is it. You will never be

able to get the budget plus 5 percent over a 5-year period in my judgment.

I have had others talk to me about the benefits that would come if, instead of the county having to assign to the SCS up to 5 percent for technical assistance, that restriction were lifted and it were done at the State level. They point out that it would be much easier to administer.

In the first place, to get this 5 percent and to hold it, you have always had to agree that ACP had to wish to do it. Then if you let the State do it, you would run into a situation where some counties are having their 5 percent transferred to you when they did not wish

to.

Our subcommittee has never taken a strong position on that. But I will say that in the Senate there has been a strong feeling through the years, according to my recollection, to keep it on a county basis so that the farmers in any county should not have their money taken away unless they wish it.

I mention that here for the record. That was done quite a number of years ago, and I want this record to show the reasoning behind it which I think continues to be sound. I do not know what we can do about the appropriations this year, with the present administration and the public demanding more and more spending in defense, much of which I think is unsound. However big the national debt, or however serious our dangers are in this world, the stronger we keep our country, the better able we are to meet the dangers. Even then you have to give some consideration to budgeted amounts. We are just one subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee and if all other subcommittees stay within the budget and we exceed the total budget, we are liable to come out with less than we would have if we had gone along with the general policy of the Appropriations Committee.

That does not mean that, within the overall total recommended by the budget, this subcommittee will not exercise its own judgment insofar as giving emphasis where it can.

While you were speaking, I read ahead of you and for that reason checked it, and I do find that from the ACP fund you get approximately $7.5 million and from the conservation reserve you get about a million dollars. I was looking into possibilities in that direction.

Certainly we know your great interest in the Soil Conservation Service. This subcommittee has a long record of interest in this and most Members of Congress are strongly interested in it.

We appreciate your presentation and your calling these facts to our attention. Speaking for myself-I am sure this reflects the views of the subcommittee-we will do the best that we can with the problem.

Mr. NATCHER. Gentlemen, I want to thank you for the fine statements that you have made to our committee. As you well know soil conservation means as much to my home State of Kentucky as to any State in the United States.

You have many achievements to your credit in my home State. Our soil conservation officers, and all members connected with the Soil Conservation Service in Kentucky, are, in my opinion, dedicated

people and they are rendering fine service and accomplishing a fine job in my home State.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that we all appreciate the fact that these gentlemen have taken of their time to come and appear before this subcommittee.

I feel that a group such as we have with us, like Mr. Fuqua, Mr. Monk, Mr. Cox, and Mr. Rieck, are intensely interested, as are the members of this subcommittee, in conserving the soils of this great country of ours for the generations yet to come.

That is why I am always delighted to see these gentlemen come before us. They are here to do the best that they can for the Nation as a whole and I respect them for taking their time and coming here to discuss this question with us.

As a premise to the few remarks I want to make, Mr. Chairman, I am going to say this: We hear in every press statement today something of the necessity of doing something toward curing the unemployment situation. It is reported to be bad. I do not see any place that we can do better, as long as the Congress and the Nation seem to think that we should invest some of this country's assets in putting people to work, and I think a few million dollars expended additional above the budget along the lines of helping in soil conservation is probably the most worthwhile place we can use some of those funds. It would not only put a lot of people to work but it will create jobsand I am thinking now of the watersheds-it will create something for the future which will be of benefit from now on to the people these things are designed to help.

Am I right in that or not?

Mr. FUQUA. You sure are. It will tend to stabilize communities and make them a lot more successful in their community efforts.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I want to point out the difference between this, without in any way criticizing the suggestion that we invest $2 billion in public buildings. We need those buildings all the way through the United States, and we need new postal facilities, but I would like to see a percentage of that amount, even 4 percent which would amount to $80 million, turned over instead into the channels affecting watersheds, soil conservation, and such, and in the enlargement of our technical staffs so that we can do more than we are doing today, and as we should do today in conserving our soils.

Gentlemen, when we think of the huge sums of money now proposed, $2 billion alone for building public buildings, after you have built them and after the workmen have taken their wages, what do you have? You have just the buildings. If we could spend a little amount of money, a small percentage of that on completing, for example, those 11 authorized watersheds and pushing this watershed-protection program, right from the beginning there accrues to the benefit of all of the people of America incalculable amounts of good. It is not just simply an empty shell, such as a building standing there, but the economy of each and every one of those spots in the Nation affected would be improved from now on.

That is my line of thinking, gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I am very much interested in the proposal brought before us relative to trying to do something worthwhile on increasing the technical help situation.

This subcommittee through the years has always recognized that there is a deficiency there and, gentlemen, I want you to know, and I am sure that you know, we are just as much concerned about this

as you are.

In my years upon the subcommittee, as Mr. Whitten also can testify, we have seen the amount for soil conservation operations increase from $15 million and now you are requesting $72.25 million. I remember the fight I had years ago to break that ceiling on the $15 million, no less, and now even at the $72.25 million.

I feel that we are too low if we are to look at it from the standpoint of benefit to the people of America. I have been revolving in my mind your suggestion as to the $20 million additional authorization for 2 years. I do not see it exactly in the statement but are you suggesting trying to get through Congress something like $20 million additional for this coming fiscal year and then an additional $20 million above that for the following? Is that the recommendation of your association?

Mr. MONк. By adding $20 million in the 1959 proposal and by authorization an additional $20 million to be appropriated in 1960;

yes.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I think, gentlemen, under the situation facing us in the Congress if we could make an 8-year plan out of this and secure you gentlemen an increase of $5 million a year for an 8-year period and hit for that same $40 million additional ceiling, and possibly make that $5 million a year increase a permanent affair, I think perhaps we would be able to do something, at least we could hope for success in our efforts. Practically speaking, I doubt whether we could get anything in the neighborhood of $20 million through Congress, much as we desire to do so, but I can assure you from my point of view that I am going to attempt at least a $5 million increase for Soil Conservation Service operations.

I agree with these gentlemen in the statement that they make toward the conclusion as to where we are going to get this money? To me, it is a shifting over to the most essential thing. I say, as 1 of the 2 authors on this side of the table of the conservation reserve, which was really the soil bank, that I am perfectly willing to see the conservation reserve move slowly for a few years until we know that that particular plan has its feet on the ground.

Mr. WHITTEN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDERSEN. Yes.

Mr. WHITTEN. I have been turning this over in my mind, and I know it has had the attention of all of the committee, as to what ought to be done. I do believe that when the President and the Secretary recommended an elimination of the acreage reserve this year and I am in accord with that-that that constituted an admission that taking acres out was not the answer to our farm problem. That leaves the conservation reserve program, as I see it, which is primarily a conservation program. That is the only argument left for it, which is a good one. Since it now will be taken as a conservation program, I have wondered whether the Department should not give study and you folks in the conservation field should not give study to it, as to whether the conservation reserve and the ACP program should not be consolidated with this longer-than-1-year contract authority which you have in the conservation reserve?