increase of $1.4 million is proposed to finance a program designed to make the farmers, private landowners, and the general public more aware of the problems associated with nonpoint pollution; to suggest potential solutions that are both economically and socially feasible, while at the same time, allowing land owners the maximum freedom to choose between various alternatives on water quality issues.

That concludes my statement.

TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you. We might hear from the Library, at this time.

Dr. BERTRAND. Dr. Farley?

Dr. FARLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Technical Information Systems operates from the National Agricultural Library building in Beltsville. We also have two very large libraries in the district-the Agricultural Law, and the Economics and Statistics Libraries-plus 18 officially designated field libraries in the states and 30 information centers, which contain approximately a quarter of a million volumes.

Mr. WHITTEN. Talk a little louder.

Dr. FARLEY. Our task is to capture the results of research as done by the Department of Agriculture-

Mr. WHITTEN. Is it a hard job to run it down?

Dr. FARLEY. It sure is.

Mr. WHITTEN. You used the word "capture." [Laughter.]

Dr. FARLEY. That's why I used that word. [Laughter.]

Mr. WHITTEN. Well, I thought it might be better to have it delivered to you, so you wouldn't have to run it down. Go ahead. Dr. FARLEY. Once we have captured it, we index it, catalog it, and make it available to anyone who needs it.

FISCAL YEAR 1982 BUDGET REQUEST

Our increased request this year amounts to $449,000 with a major portion going to cover the increase in costs of books and journals, which now run about 18 to 20 percent.

The additional $100,000 will be used to support the Food and Nutrition Information Center with the remainder for supplementing the cost of our automated data bases.

That concludes my statement.

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you very much. I think this subcommittee has a good track record as far as supporting the Extension Service and Cooperative Research activities. I think these efforts have been the backbone of agricultural development right through the years, but only a part of it.

I think that I should say that this Committee has been on the forefront in pointing out certain problems that have developed in our country. I had a study which shows that the dollar has depreciated more than 50 percent since 1967, and that about 70 percent of the federal budget bypasses the appropriation process which subjects it to annual review. These uncontrollable expenditures keep rising wit

flation. I don't mean to condemn the things in that

category, but they leave a relatively small amount which is controllable.

BUDGET TARGETS

I also happen to be cochairman of the group that made the study about how to try to harness or, as you say, capture that spending to which Congress was committing itself in advance, only to have to pay the check later.

Now, that was the study that recommended legislation to create the Budget Committee. I served on that committee the first year. The law provides for a tentative spending target first, which we are supposed to aim for, and later a final ceiling and a reconciliation if the total exceeds the limit.

I can fully appreciate the position of the President, and the Office of Management and Budget that comes under the President, with the election and the promise to do something about inflation.

BUDGET CUTS

What disturbs me is the fact that, in the last few weeks in particular, attention has been given to making cuts in order to carry out campaign promises, as against cuts that reflect good economics. That's a matter of judgment and I don't mean to question anybody's good intention, but that's the way I see it.

I frequently say in Congress, and it works the same way in the Executive Branch, that when you work towards what you believe in you'll always get less than you believe in, but you have to defend it from those who think you got too much and those who think you got too little. If you just want to record your views without working toward your beliefs, you might as well stay at home and write the editor.

So, I recognize the difficulties, but when I look at the recommendations sent down in the budget, I can't help but think that perhaps they are not putting first things first.

I think a big part of the economic problem we face today is that we've gone overboard with spending in many, many areas. But many people have been convinced that cutting the budget will solve everything, and goodness knows, I hope it does, but I think that is overly optimistic. Then, what bothers me further, as I study the budget, is that we are not cutting out and saving, we are just cutting it out over here, and giving it to additional military spending. I ran across a statement that I haven't seen in years, and I read it for the record. Quote: "I am convinced defense is only one of the factors that enter into our determinations for defense spending. The others are pump priming, spreading the immediate benefits of defense spending, taking care of all services, giving all defense contractors a fair share, spreading the military bases to include all sections.

"There is no state in the Union and hardly a district in a state which doesn't have defense spending, contracting, or a defense establishment. We see the effect in public and Congressional insistence on continuing contracts, or operating military bases though the need is expired."

That struck me, and I looked it up. It was something I had said in 1960. Inflation is worse today in that area, so why are we doing all this?

When I look at agriculture, I see that other programs are taking funds that should be going for conservation.

I find that at home, at a time when many farmers are heavily in debt, they have plenty of assets but little income. We see that that's cut back

I will state for the record and for the benefit of anyone who might be here from OMB, that 28 times Congress has overridden budget recommendations in order to save soil conservation programs. If we had not done so, much of this country probably would be a dustbowl today. But once again they would cut those efforts to take care of our land.

You have come here asking for increases for your activities, so you can send out pamphlets to farmers, but you have cut out other things that do a lot of good for the country. So you have to justify why you should get more money while everybody else is taking cuts, even those programs that involve actual work on the land. You see what a problem it causes for us.

URBAN GARDENING

Now on the other side of this question, you know there are about 100 Members of Congress from cities, and in some of those cities the urban gardening program, which you have cut, is very important. I received an award from the City of Los Angeles where I sponsored the gardening program. What would you advise me as Chairman of the Committee to tell my urban colleagues when we ask them to support agriculture each and every year, but every year the budget cuts out the urban gardening program, and we have to put it back?

The urban gardening program was initiated by this Committee in 1977 to demonstrate the benefits of home gardening in our urban areas. The program is currently carried out in 16 major U.S. cities at an annual cost of approximately $3 million. Would you please provide for the record a summary of the accomplishments of the projects in each of the 16 cities?

Dr. BERTRAND. All 16 cities participating in the urban gardening program have similar program components. These are the teaching of gardening skills and the utilization of the produce. The latter involves both fresh use and food preservation techniques. Data on individual cities will be provided for the record.

[A table and additional commentary follow:]

New York. This program costs $8.42 per participant. There are about 75 inner-city sections with community gardens. About 850 volunteers are involved in the program.

Chicago. Eighty-three percent of gardeners believe they save money by using the produce. About 57 percent will preserve extra produce by freezing and/or canning. Los Angeles. Los Angeles has developed programs both in Spanish and English to help low-income people in learning gardening skills, improve diet and nutrition, and enhance skills in preservation techniques.

Philadelphia. Philadelphia has been involved not only in food gardening but also in city beautification by making citizens aware of the possibilities for improving the appearance of their city. Block-by-block projects with porch flower boxes and flower gardens have been very successful.

Detroit. Detroit uses the program to encourage youth to learn about gardening and also to learn of other aspects of citizenship such as team effort, community pride and organization, and to help senior citizens.

Houston. Houston's gardens differ in that there is an abundance of available space. Program officials have successfully used these large plots to encourage community participation and cooperation.

Atlanta. Atlanta's program is divided into five unique areas in which the Master Gardener Program's development techniques have been employed to expand the educational programs to reach a larger audience.

Baltimore. Baltimore has coupled the urban gardening program with the Mayor's Task Force on Urban Gardening and Nutrition and has produced an excellent sample of local government participation.

Boston. Boston has introduced "field" days to the inner-city areas. Special “Country Days" are held at the community garden sites and demonstrations, exhibits, clinics, and other educational programs are conducted.

Cleveland. Cleveland's gardening projects have transformed many undesirable eyesores into areas which enhance local pride. Container growing of trees, shrubs, and other plants has become a standard procedure in many neighborhoods.

Jacksonville. Jacksonville is one of the cities in which gardeners can participate year-round and the staff has used this factor to emphasize the proper preservation of extra produce.

Memphis. Memphis has an integral part of their program days in which produce grown is exhibited and judged. These days have created an atmosphere of pride and accomplishment which makes other non-participants want to become members of the program. It is also a morale booster for the participants.

Milwaukee. Milwaukee tempts people into joining the program by letting them sample and learn how to utilize in different ways some of the bountiful products

grown.

Newark. Newark has tied the urban gardening program with the Community Organization Program to use publicly-owned lots as community gardens and recrea

tion areas.

New Orleans. The New Orleans program is an all-year effort that has brought neighborhoods together by allowing them to have a common objective. Some participants have returned to school to learn more.

Mr. WHITTEN. The U.S. News & World Report said last year over 51 percent of American families had little gardens. You and I have a pretty good idea what they pay for a tomato if they raise them, but they do learn about growing things and about hopes in agriculture.

In Detroit last year they produced over $475,000 worth of produce from city gardens, but urban gardening would seem to be more than just a program to produce a given dollar quantity of vegetables. The program is to teach people to garden. It can also involve the raising of flowers and the beautification of an urban area. In addition, it can teach pride in the community. In developing these programs, how much attention is paid to other facets of the program in addition to just the growing of vegetables?

Dr. BERTRAND. The urban gardening program has three separate but integral parts. They are the teaching of gardening skills, the teaching of proper diet and nutrition, and the teaching of food preservation. To achieve these three objectives, community leaders