We would like just to underline one matter on public relations which is very important, and that is that the Congress from time to time is caught with an unrealistic situation where it must continue to appropriate more funds than it knows will be loaned in any given year in order that there may be a carryover. The carryover gives the public the impression that more funds are being appropriated than actually needed and that the program could be cut substantially, which is not the case.

We also would like to go on record as being in favor of continuing the unelectrified farm survey. The census figures are late, out of date, and sometimes inaccurate because that is not the primary business of the census and the information that is gathered is incidental to other information gathered by the census. So we would like to go on record as favoring the continuation of the unelectrified farm survey in order that Congress may have all the facts on which to base its legislation.

We appreciate this opportunity to be heard before the committee. Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much. Any questions of Mr. Campbell? If not, we are very much obliged to you and I am going to suggest to members of the committee that they might now like to question the witnesses en bloc, as it were. We have several here and we might want to call on some particular individual or comment on some particular phase of a witness' testimony.

I think we might ask Mr. Stong if the REA has made any estimates as to what the cost of this survey is per year.

Mr. STRONG. We estimate that our portion of the cost of the unelectrified farm survey approximates $3,000, a relatively minor sum. The overall cost of this survey plus the man-hours involved in the application of the formula totals much nearer $25,000.

Mr. POAGE. If we pass this legislation you would not have to apply the formula, would you?

Mr. STRONG. No.

Mr. POAGE. You would save that?

Mr. STRONG. That is right. That is why I split it in two parts. Mr. POAGE. So that, even if you made the survey, you would still make a substantial saving if this legislation is passed?

Mr. STRONG. That is correct, and we feel there are worthwhile uses to which that money could be placed.

Mr. HOPE. I understood you to say your part of the cost of the survey. What other agency bears a part of the cost?

Mr. STRONG. I will ask Mr. Robert Partridge, our program analyst of the REA, to answer that.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT PARTRIDGE, PROGRAM ANALYST, RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION

Mr. PARTRIDGE. The Federal Power Commission assists us in making the survey. They furnish us lists of utilities to which we address questionnaires. We also contact the State utility commissions in each State to find out what they have in the way of data on unelectrified farms. And we contact each municipal company and the REA borrowers specifically as to whether they serve across States. Mr. HOPE. That does not indicate that there would be any substantial cost so far as any of these people on whom you rely for infor

mation are concerned. They would not charge you for that information, would they?

We

Mr. PARTRIDGE. Not substantially. Some State commissions have put quite a bit of effort in getting information on unelectrified farms. One group I did not mention is the Edison Electric Institute. maintain liaison with them and they furnish us with some data. Mr. HOPE. Have you had any difficulty obtaining full cooperation from the agencies you have mentioned?

Mr. PARTRIDGE. No, sir. They have been most cooperative with us. They have made clear to us their estimates in many cases are perhaps not too reliable. They have the same difficulties we have in trying to make accurate estimates.

Mr. HOPE. By going to all those sources you have an opportunity to cross check, I assume?

Mr. PARTRIDGE. That is correct.

Mr. HOPE. Which would make your figures more accurate than checking with just one source.

Mr. PARTRIDGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOPE. That is all.

Mr. JOHNSON. When you talk about unelectrified farms, take Mississippi, for example; if you have a big plantation that is electrified and the tenant houses are not electrified, how is that classified?

Mr. PARTRIDGE. The farm is classed as one farm. So far as the consumers who are served, they are usually reported by their individual meters. Usually each house has a meter on it. That gives rise to another problem we have in making the estimate, in that each meter reported is not necessarily a farm. We had raw data estimates that ran 140 percent of the farms in a given State being electrified. Edison Electric Institute has the same problem, and have had to work out an adjustment factor to take care of that.

Mr. POAGE. What you are telling us is, for instance on my dairy we have four different meters. you first get them as though they were different farms and then you make the adjustinent?

Mr. PARTRIDGE. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. If electricity runs by the farm and is not connected, the farm is still considered unelectrified?

Mr. PARTRIDGE. That is correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. You do not know how many of those situations there are?

If

Mr. PARTRIDGE. In answer to your question, that is correct. they are not actually served and are not shown as a consumer, it is considered an unelectrified farm.

It might be interesting to the committee to point out some of the troubles we have had with our estimates in the past. For example, in the 1950 estimate we show a United States total of electrified farms amounting to 86.3 percent of the farms in the United States. When the census data became available, it showed the farms electrified as of April 1, 1950, and that percentage was 77.2 percent. The difficulty is principally one of a base number of farms which we must In making the 1950 estimate we had to refer to the 1945 farms reported by the census. It made a considerable difference when the census figures became available in 1950. The farms electrified January 1, 1945, as reported by the census were 45.7 percent, and our estimate as of June 30, 1945, was 44.7 percent-fairly close.

use.

Mr. STRONG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to restate briefly and add to a comment I made in the early part of my testimony.

Mr. POAGE. Surely.

Mr. STRONG. I believe at that time that we felt almost any one of these bills before the Congress would accomplish the principal objective we had, namely, elimination of the formula, which hampers the orderly progress of the program and requires the authorization of money not actually needed in the program.

In connection with the unelectrified farm survey, we feel, as we believe Mr. Partridge's testimony has indicated, that that survey and the resulting figures are unavoidably inaccurate. Therefore, the survey is unnecessary and cumbersome. We feel also that constant repetition publicly of the 95-percent completion figure of farms served from central stations serves only to mislead and confuse the public into thinking that the job of rural electrification is just about completed. That is not the case, as Mr. Ellis has testified. It is not the case because the job of rural electrification is not done in spite of the fact that as of this coming June 30 we feel confident that our estimate of the number of farms served will approximate 95 percent. The average person, uninformed as to the intricacies of rural electrification, might jump to the conclusion from that 95-percent figure that only 5 percent of the goal established back in 1935 remains to be done. We know in REA that there is a big job to be done, and we do not believe that 95 percent actually presents to the public a true picture of what remains to be done.

Mr. POAGE. Do you not recognize, and I think the members of the committee can readily understand the difficulty with which you are faced in securing accurate statistics, and recognize that you cannot possibly be expected to get absolutely accurate figures, but still it is true that you do make an estimate, and if you do not continue to make your own estimates, then the only estimate that you will get will be the ones supplied by the Edison Institute, which probably could be no more correct? Obviously, their estimate is going to have some of the defects which yours has, and some in addition.

Mr. STRONG. I think you are quite right in that, but I would like to take it one step further to the point of whether any survey is longer needed, with 95 percent of the farms served, with the major job ahead of us not one of extending service, but one of heavying up, of improvement of the systems, of improving the supply of power to make certain that the needs of the farms are met at every step of the way. That is the big job which lies ahead, and that is not reflected by the 95-percent figure that I was referring to.

Mr. PoAGE. Of course that is correct, but is not this also true, that there are probably eight States in which they are lagging behind in actual connections, and it probably does serve a useful purpose to be able to single out those particular States? Of course, your organization knows which eight States they are, but I do not know just which they are. Is it not desirable to be able to point your finger and say, These are the States? Nevada is one of the States, for instance. Is not that desirable, rather than simply having the general information that the average is 95 percent? Is it not desirable to be able to point to those States which are lagging behind?

Mr. STRONG. Our experience has been for the last couple of years, Mr. Chairman--and I think it certainly would be true in the rural

areas if they are lagging that they do not hesitate to let their Congressman know what their situation is.

Mr. POAGE. I think that is correct.

Mr. HOPE.

Mr. HOPE. I would like to ask this question: In view of what you have just said, Mr. Strong, it would seem to be desirable to have some figures that might more accurately reflect just what the job is that is ahead. Would it be possible for you to secure figures which would indicate what you and Mr. Ellis have both said does constitute the big job of improving these existing systems, and the extension of power sources, of building up the connecting lines, and that sort of thing? Could you do that as a part of your survey?

Mr. STRONG. Yes, Mr. Congressman, I think you are quite right in that respect. Within the last year, the REA has, for the first time, instituted a comprehensive annual survey of the rural electric systems, calling upon them for their estimates of the loan needs, by farms, for a 5-year period ahead, broken down into distribution connections, for consumers, heavying up of line, generation, needs, and so on, so that we have in our hands, for the first time now, a reasonably accurate picture of what the need is next year, the year after, and the year after, and so on. That survey, as I said, is to be an annual survey. We feel that with a couple of years of experience, on our part and on the part of our borrowers, that that survey will provide us—will provide the Congress and the public with a very accurate picture of where the program is headed, where the needs are, and so on.

Mr. HOPE. Does the language in the bill 5376-well, let me say the language in the present law, because that is what it is-take care of all you need to carry out your survey that you are making now? In other words, I assume that you are obviously operating under the provisions of some law that authorizes you to make the survey. Mr. STRONG. 5376 is Mr. Poage's bill?

Mr. HOPE. Yes.

Mr. STRONG. That eliminates the formula?
Mr. HOPE. Yes.

Mr. STRONG. Apparently all witnesses here have agreed to that.
Mr. HOPE. But it retains, it restates the survey provision.
Mr. STRONG. Yes.

Mr. HOPE. But this survey does not cover the broad ground which you have mentioned. But I take it there is something in the law somewhere that gives you the authority to make this broader survey. Mr. STRONG. Yes, there is, Mr. Hope. Section 2 of the Rural Electrification Act. In that section appears this language:

The Administrator is authorized to make, or cause to be made, studies, investigations, and reports concerning the conditions and progress of the electrification of, and the furnishing of, additional telephone service in the rural areas of the Federal States and Territories and to publish and disseminate information with respect thereto.

We are proceeding under that authority, already contained in the act, with this survey, for borrowers' needs, of which I just spoke to you. Mr. HOPE. My point is this: Could you not combine that information, the results of the surveys, in the Poage bill-and which the Johnson bill contains in the amendment, here? Could not that include also the result of the information which you gather by reason of the other authority? I agree with you that just to publish the results of

this survey as to the number of farms that are served or not served, percentagewise, does not give the full picture. Would it not be advisable, when you publish the results of the survey, to include all of these factors that you develop by reason of the provision in section 2?

Mr. STRONG. The correlation of the reports of these two surveys has not been effected as of this time. They came at different times of the year. In the first year, the new survey was intended to show the loan needs and the purpose of the loan needs. It would be entirely possible, I should think, to correlate, to coordinate, them. We have given public distribution of the result of the surveys that I told you about as to the borrower needs, showing in effect the rural electrification needs. That has been published, and we intend to make it public annually.

Mr. HOPE. Well, it seems to me, whether you need any more language than you have here or not, that an additional purpose of this survey, as well as the other survey, is to develop information as to the needs, and if you are going to make that information public, it would be well to combine the two, or at least to correlate them, so that the public would know what was necessary to do in order to bring the whole program up to date.

Mr. STRONG. I am quite sure that that can be done.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOPE. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Did I understand you to say that they are being made at the same time of the year, and that you think they could be made at the same time of the year and put in the same report?

Mr. STRONG. The plan for this coming year is to coordinate and correlate them. The first survey was instituted as a sort of interim period project. In the coming year, it will be coordinated and correlated and furnish information, of course, for the requirements for the unelectrified farms.

Mr. HOPE. Now, assume that we report and pass the Poage bill, which contains the provision for the survey, and you go ahead just as you are now, with this survey and the survey provided for in section 2, you would then make a report, combining and coordinating the two, so that you would give the public the true picture. Do I understand that would be the idea?

Mr. STRONG. That would be our new objective; yes.

Mr. BASS. I would like to ask you this question: Actually there are only two objections to the survey. One is the amount of the inaccuracy in it, and the other is the cost of it; is that correct?

Mr. STRONG. Well, there are three. The major objection, to my mind, is that it presents an inaccurate distorted picture to the uninformed public.

Mr. BASS. That is one.

Mr. STRONG. When they see here a statement that 95 percent of the farms of the country are receiving central station electric service, they cannot be blamed for reaching the conclusion that the job of rural electrification is about finished; that it is 95 percent complete. That is my personal objection.

Mr. BASS. The cost is a very nominal objection, is it not?

Mr. STRONG. The dollars?

Mr. BASS. Yes.

Mr. STRONG. Yes; $3,000.