tained, maintained, and defended. Have you in mind any further legislation relating to farm cooperatives that ought to be incorporated in this bill?

Secretary ANDERSON. Not as to farm cooperatives. The chief thing is provision for a floor under consumption.

Senator AIKEN. In respect to natural resources. I assume you refer there to perhaps the provisions of the House bill which would transfer some of the functions of the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture. However, in an earlier statement, I understood you to say that we ought to wait on those things until after the so-called Hoover Commission makes it report.

Secretary ANDERSON. Where you are going to wait, and we do think you should on that question of reorganization, then I think perhaps the statement of policy

Senator AIKEN. But if we wait on one factor, we ought to wait on the others, too, should we not? As a matter of fact, the Hoover Commission, as it is called, does not expect the Congress to delay any action which seeks to streamline and make departments more economical and efficient. I will guarantee that is the position of the commission because I am a member of it and brought the question up myself at one of the meetings.

The CHAIRMAN. What commission is that?

Senator AIKEN. The Commission for Reorganization of the Government, of which ex-President Hoover is chairman. So I do not see how we could have gotten things in this bill.

Senator LUCAS. I agree with you, Senator, we cannot; nor does the bill contain the provision for stating the objectives in the bill itself. I think if we stated the objective in a declaration of policy, that we ought to carry it out. If we do not intend to carry it out, we ought to eliminate it from the declaration of policy.

Senator AIKEN. I think we could well state the declaration of policy, even if we have to work to obtain the objectives in that policy through other committees of the Congress; and certainly as regards the expansion of social security, farm safety, we would not get those bills referred to us. We would be charged with infringement on the domain of the Finance Committee if we put it in here.

Senator LUCAS. It is a question in my mind whether we ought to set up any declaration of policy in the bill that we don't carry out. Senator AIKEN. Senator, as I recall it, we hoped that this declaration of policy might have influence on some of the other committees of the Congress.

Senator LUCAS. I think the report will have more effect than the declaration of policy set forth in the report, but in view of the fact that we cannot carry this out we are therefore limiting it to the declaration of policy.

Senator AIKEN. The declaration of policy may have to be changed, but, as you know, we did expect it to express the opinion of this committee to the other committees, which would have these other matters under their jurisdiction.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not quite understand the situation. I would like to know if you feel it is too late to include in this bill the suggestions that the Secretary of Agriculture has brought us here. Senator AIKEN. It is never too late. That is what we we have these committee meetings for, to get the testimony from all interested

parties; we realize that we have to rework the bill, go over it somewhat, because there are parts of it probably to which each member of the subcommittee that introduced it would object.

The CHAIRMAN. Now I understood your statement that you were not in accord with the suggestions made by the Secretary of Agriculture. Senator AIKEN. No. I was pointing out that some of the things he suggested would come under the jurisdiction of the other committees of the Congress and not under the jurisdiction of our committee.

The CHAIRMAN. They could not properly be included in this bill? Senator AIKEN. That is right, but we did include them in the policy. Whether that was right or wrong, I do not pretend to be the last word, but we did want to call attention to these matters.

Secretary ANDERSON. May I then start with Title I-Reorganization.

PROPOSED NEW BUREAU

Title I of the bill begins with a provision which would create in the Department a new consolidated agency for conservation work, the Bureau of Conservation and Improvement. It was for a similar purpose that we have expressed the belief that the functions of the Soil Conservation Service and the agricultural conservation program should be consolidated into an entirely new single program and agency within the Department. I still recommend legislative action to make this possible. However, section 101 would transfer to the proposed Bureau of Conservation and Improvement not merely conservation work but other functions requiring "direct dealings by the Department with farmers."

This would include price support, marketing quotas, and other functions not necessarily related directly to conservation. This seems likely to be confusing and we believe is undesirable and unnecessary to the apparent purpose of the bill.

With respect to subparagraphs (a) and (b) of section 101, I would recommend serious consideration by the committee with a view either to eliminating these provisions entirely or else modifying them for two results: (1) To recognize those functions of an educational and informational nature which are an integral part of the conservation programs and necessary to insure their effective operation; and (2) to recognize those conservation research activities dealing with fundamental problems of national or regional concern which should, in the interest of all concerned, be operated on a Nation-wide basis, with appropriate corporation with State research agencies. These mutual relationships, which have been developed through many years of successful experience, have proved to be intrinsically sound. Besides providing a basis for effective operation of the Department's conservation programs, they also preserve the integrity of the educational function carried on through cooperative extension work.

If our conservation programs are to be most productive, farmers and others involved must have an understanding of the need for and significance of positive measures to insure adequate conservation, and all the various methods which may be utilized to attain this goal.

They must also understand the general objectives of specific governmentally sponsored conservation programs, the types of assistance to individual farmers provided through such programs, and how individual farmers may cooperate in them. In addition to the necessary

extension educational programs, there is, of course, educational or informational work which must be performed by the operating agency as an integral and inseparable part of specific conservation-program operations.

In order to be able to meet its important educational responsibility effectively, the Federal-State Cooperative Extension Service should not be required to assume the additional load of responsibility for administrative or detailed operational functions.

Another recommendation I offer pertains to the provision in this bill for allocating additional Federal funds for the educational, informational, and demonstrational features of conservation work to the Extension Service on the basis of the provisions of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. As you know, agricultural conservation and improvement needs vary from State to State, and the intensity of conservationprogram activity consequently varies.

Therefore, we believe the Congress might well explore the possibility of providing an allocation formula for these funds to be made available to the States that would recognize the variations in need which are not necessarily asosciated with farm population. We believe that an allocation formula which recognized these differences in need would be in the national interest, in that it would provide the means for the Extension Service adequately to support and facilitate the conservation programs of the Department. In our opinion, best results would be assured if the States were required to match Federal funds for this educational work.

In providing for the allocations of funds for extension educational work on conservation, consideration should be given, of course, to the needs of Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands as well as to the 48 States and Hawaii.

CONSERVATION RESEARCH

We come now to those provisions of the bill relating to soil-conservation research functions. I have already referred to the desirability of preserving the Department's participation in research work on fundamental problems of national and regional concern. The proposal in S. 2318 to break up the national conservation research program of the Department of Agriculture and turn its functions over to 48 State programs would result in lack of proper attention to problems of national and interstate concern as well as unnecessary duplication of effort. Apparent support for our views on this point is found in subsection 8 of section 2, which provides a policy for―

expansion of Federal and State soil surveys and other investigations, experimentations, and research.

* * *

Subsequent provisions of the bill, as I have pointed out, would obstruct rather than facilitate the fulfillment of this stated objective. Senator AIKEN. You would not give the State and local people any more authority than they have now, then?

Secretary ANDERSON. In research?

Senator AIKEN. In anything.

Secretary ANDERSON. That is about right.

Senator AIKEN. That is what I gathered your first statement to

mean.

Secretary ANDERSON. That is right. We have provided, as you will see as I go along, for the possibility of giving committees some consolidation of duties; I mean, trying to group them together, but not the administration of programs of this nature, although they are administering price-support programs.

Senator AIKEN. You would not increase State or local authority over what it is now?

Secretary ANDERSON. No.

RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

In connection with the proposal to reorganize and rename the Agricultural Research Administration, I should like to point out that, after long experience and much thought, departmental research activities have already been coordinated in a workable pattern. The Administrator of the Agricultural Research Administration has, within his own organization, administrative control of a large share of the Department's research activities other than economic research. In addition, he is authorized and directed to coordinate all such research activities of other agencies of the Department. In carrying out this responsibility, he reviews and approves research projects and proposals prior to their initiation, advises with agency heads in planning reasearch program, and reports to the Secretary on these research activities.

Senator AIKEN. May I interrupt you there before you get too far away from it?

I understand that you think we should not consolidate the Soil Conservation Service and the agricultural conservation program to the extent that we have proposed. Last fall you recommended the consolidation of the Soil Conservation Service program activities and agricultural conservation program activities in one agency, and you did not state anything about any exceptions on those activities there. Secretary ANDERSON. I do not think they are in conflict. We do not recommend now that you take the research activities of Soil Conservation away from them, nor the research activities of the Forest Service away from them, and put it in the Agricultural Research Administration.

We have had long discussions on the problem. I had Soil Conservation people in and Forest Service people in, and I think the best contribution was made by a member of our Research Advisory Committee, Director Reed, who pointed out that in his particular State he had general supervision over research work that was done in forestry and in soil conservation, but he did not actually move their research facilities within the experiment station; and we are recommending here much the same sort of thing with reference to the Forest Service, that while all their projects shall be submitted to the Administrator of the Agricultural Research Administration and be approved by him so there will be coordination, we do not want to move the actual research worker over into the Agricultural Research Administration. We believe in leaving him with the Forest Service or Soil Conservation Service.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that program in effect?

Secretary ANDERSON. Yes; the program of coordination is in effect now; but it is a matter, I am quite willing to say to the committee, on

which we have spent a lot of time. We drew up, as the members of the committee know, a great many different reorganization charts and considered them, and at one time set up and looked at the picture of the complete Research Administration where we would have moved these research workers into the Research Administration.

Senator AIKEN. If the program for coordination and research is in effect now and working all right, why was it that all over the United States the farmers would get us in some back corner and complain about the other organization overlaping their domain?

Secretary ANDERSON, I do not think it is with the research work. Senator AIKEN. It is true, they did not testify on the record, but I do not think we had a single hearing that we did not get complaints that different organizations were overlapping in their research work. That is what we truly tried to get away from in the belief that it would help you, Mr. Secretary, to have a single coordinator of research responsible solely to you, who would see to it that the agencies did not get over the fence on the other fellow's territory.

Secretary ANDERSON. In all the visits I have made out to farm groups, I have never had them object that the forest research, for example, was done by the Forest Service instead of by the Research Administration. These are the two involved-Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service. Nor have I ever had them object about the research activities of the Soil Conservation Service. What I hear farmers objecting to when I go out to their meetings is that there are frequently four headquarters in a county, and they do not know whether they are supposed to go to see the Soil Conservation Service, county extension agent, AAA committee, or Farmers Home Administration on their planning activities.

Anything that brings them closer together at the county level will have our support, and I think it is a fine thing to do it, but I question seriously whether at the national level the research of the Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service should be brought directly under the Agricultural Research Administration.

I am very frank to say to you that there was a good deal of support for that idea within the Department, and there have been many long arguments about it. It is not a matter that is life or death, and we agree if it is done it will not destroy the Department of Agriculture. I am saying that, after long study of it and consideration by the Research and Marketing Advisory Committee as well, that we came to the conclusion we should not do it.

Senator AIKEN. Do you interpret the wording of this bill to mean that the work of the Forest Service was principally related to Soil Conservation? This is on page 5 of the bill.

Secretary ANDERSON. We thought it would transfer Soil Conservation research into the States and Forest Service research into this other agency.

Senator LUCAS. To what section of this bill are you referring?

Senator AIKEN. It is on top of page 5, Senator Lucas. Section 101 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an agency known as the Bureau of Agricultural Conservation and Improvement; and in that agency he would be required to consolidate the Soil Conservation Service and agricultural conservation programs branch of the

75470-48-3