States has agreed on this principle; that we want to stand alone and have our own inspection service.

We feel that it isn't desirable to be united with a competitive product. We feel as though, from an economy standpoint, it would mean nothing. The reason we say that is that the type of inspection is so much different. It is so unrepresentative of inspection done by the meat industry that it cannot be coordinated. We merely state this: That AMS has been representing all commodities in the United States other than meat inspection. They have done a wonderful job, and we feel as though they deserve our confidence and respect.

There is no need, as I see it, and as the group here sees it, to make any further statements. We just want to assure you that we appreciate the opportunity of coming before you. We thought, probably, that you might be going on the wrong slant; that you were going to upset some things that had been accomplished in our hearings before the two committees, both the House and the Senate.

And we want to endorse what Senator Williams said; to endorse what Senator Humphrey was willing to say after he withdrew the bill, in which he took somewhat the same stand that has been developed in some of the work of the Appropriations Committees.

We thank you for the opportunity of being here, and we hope that we will deserve all the respect and all of the confidence that is given to us in seeing that we keep on increasing one of these commodities that has meant so much to the human race and to the people of the United States.

IMPORTANCE OF POULTRY INDUSTRY

I will say this: That poultry has developed from a little thing, when it was a farm flock, to what it is today. In the last decade, the amount of consumption of poultry meat has doubled and tripled and is now continuing to be in great demand. We can produce it cheaply. It is needed. And we feel as though the time has come when it will be needed more.

In reference to foreign use, we have developed markets which, we think, will continue to be markets for this wonderful product that we produce.

Germany, West Germany, sent over a large delegation of about 30 importers, and they are buying on a dollar-tender basis. They have no responsibilities, no preference in any way. And they came over here because they had become so enthusiastic over our product.

We have a number of other countries in the world which are interested in our product. We feel as though we can convert surplus grains into poultry meat, and that there is a distinct possibility-and I am stating something that is endorsed by many of our leaders in the industry that we may have a potential in foreign markets equal to what we have in this country.

And it is done through the wonderful work that has been done in Mississippi, that has been done in Alabama, that has been done in your wonderful State of Georgia, and in our State of Virginia, and in Arkansas.

And we have the unanimous support in the industry from all these groups and all of these areas, that they want to have the privilege of developing a product and feel as though, when it is the third largest producer of national income on the farm, it deserves to stand by itself and to get the results that we think we can get.

Thank you.

Senator RUSSELL. We are glad to have heard you, Mr. House.

If you gentlemen desire to file further statements, we will be glad to have them for the record. I don't think it is necessary, but, if you wish to file any further statements, we'll be glad to receive them. Mr. WILLIAMS. May I say one more word, Mr. Chairman? I just wanted to say that I think the position of our industry, as far as the economies of Government and in their own operation, is well known, and the fact that we have not asked for any expensive Government programs to keep us going.

Senator RUSSELL. The next witness is Mr. James Blyth, secretary of the American Rabbit Breeders Association, and Mr. Dick Parker, the president.

AMERICAN RABBIT BREEDERS ASSOCIATION

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES BLYTH, SECRETARY

REDIRECTION OF RABBIT RESEARCH

Mr. BLYTH. We are not here to take up any of your time, Mr. Chairman. We just want to ask you Senators to support us when the decision that the other body made comes to the Senate. are not asking for any other appropriation. We are satisfied. We need to keep this experiment station operating for the benefit of the future.

Senator RUSSELL. We are glad to have heard you this morning. This statement you filed will be printed in the record. (The statement referred to follows:)

It is our understanding that Secretary Benson has recommended that all appropriations be cut off rabbit research. This would effect the closing of the rabbit experimental station at Fontana, Calif. We rabbit breeders find it very difficult to understand how a person heading the United States Department of Agriculture would suggest such a drastic thing and hope that you gentlemen will study this action carefully before approving it.

Research is a great thing and like every other industry, the rabbit industry needs research. Many new things have come about in the last few years through research and a number of these have come through the station at Fontana. Many more will come later on as a number are in the making. The station at Fontana has been active for more than 25 years. They have carried on many experiments that have been very helpful to the more than 400,000 American rabbit raisers. If the station should be closed, it would mean a great waste of money and valuable information. The things that are now being worked out would never help and the money already spent on the station and its upkeep is more waste. Surely our Government is interested in helping more than 400,000 Americans produce more healthful meat, furs that will wear better, and rabbits that will give medical science better animals to carry on their very important experiments.

Rabbits, to be suitable for these important experiments, must first of all be healthy. Our station along this line has been a great help to the American rabbit raisers to the point that the dreaded rabbit disease snuffles has just about been eliminated. Blout is just about under control. Through this station, worries of disease among the rabbits is now no great problem. The Angora wooler factor has just about been eliminated from the fur rabbits which gives the fur better wearing qualities and makes it look better.

The palpating of rabbits, too, has been a great help as the breeding through the information passed along by the station tells at 14 days if the doe is going to kindle, thus save much valuable time and produce more meat. The station has given us information as to how these diseases are spread or carried. Domestic rabbits have improved greatly in the past 20 years due to the help from the station. Millions of pounds of rabbit meat is consumed by the American public each year. Many thousands are used in medical research for the benefit of the human race. Millions of rabbit skins are used by the hat trade. Most all ladies'

and men's felt hats are made from rabbit fur. The rabbit fur coat for ladies and children are reasonable in price and, therefore, can be afforded by the general public. During the last World War, domestic rabbit meat was much sought after by many Americans who found it to be a healthful, nutritious, and all lean meat. Being lean, it was suitable for people who had stomach trouble or were ill.

The only thing the American rabbit breeders has is the station. Surely 400,000 raisers and the general public who consume rabbit meat, the many doctors and scientists who use rabbits in their experiments, the American hat trade and those who manufacture the ladies' and children's wear are deserving of this help from our Government.

I am sure you gentlemen agree that were it not for research we would be in poor shape today. The rabbit industry is not large, however; it is growing and needs the station's help and will in the future. We have all appreciated the help our Government has given us in the past and appeal to you gentlemen to help us carry on this much needed work by voting to sustain the station and approve a budget that will still permit this great work to carry on.

Thanking you for your kindness.

NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL

Senator RUSSELL. The next witness is representing the National Cotton Council?

Senator ELLENDER. I notice you have a prepared statement, Mr. Buck. Do you wish to place it in the record and highlight it for the committee?

Mr. Buck. If I may do that, Senator.

Senator ELLENDER. Yes. The statement will be printed in the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL

My name is George S. Buck, Jr. I am assistant (on technical research) to the executive vice president of the National Cotton Council of America, which has its headquarters in Memphis, Tenn. The council is the organization of the raw cotton industry. Its membership is composed of cotton producers, ginners, warehousemen, merchants, spinners, and cottonseed crushers.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to present the views of the cotton industry on the urgent need for a substantial increase in funds for research. The outlook for the cotton industry was never more serious than today. In large measure cotton's present problems could have been alleviated by a greater research effort in the past; and still further losses in cotton's markets, with the concurrent attrition of both farm production and all of the related operations of the cotton industry, could even now be halted with the aid of an adequate program of research.

Not only the cotton industry, but the Congress (as indicated by various bills introduced in both Houses), and many special commissions and advisory groups on agricultural problems have recognized the necessity for a greater effort in agricultural research in general and cotton research in particular. Three years ago, the Cotton Council, along with a group of farm and commodity organizations interested in agricultural research and education, adopted a plan designed to give an adequate program in this field. It provided for an annual increase in appropriations for each of the 5 subsequent years of $24 million; $12 million would be for research by the Department of Agriculture, $6 million by the State experiment stations, and $6 million would be devoted to cooperative extension work to disseminate research results to farmers.

In 1957 the Congress made a good start toward implementing an effort comparable to this plan. In 1958 an economy year, appropriations fell drastically behind schedule. Now, in 1959, with the need for a greater effort in agricultural research never more serious, even those increases provided by the President's budget have been cut in half by the recommendations of the House. Needless to say the cotton industry is deeply concerned and troubled by this evidence that the potential of research, as a means for relieving the critical outlook for cotton, has not been truly appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to review for you and the members of your committee, very briefly, the basic elements of cotton's competitive situation which indicate at the same time cotton's present weakness in research and the really impressive potential of the cotton industry if it could obtain an adequate research program. This comes down to the matter of cotton's ability to compete for markets on the basis of price, quality, and promotion. Both price and quality can be directly affected by research and effective promotion depends on cotton's adequacy in price and quality.

First, with respect to cotton's present competitive weakness in price or cost, may I say that this is closely interrelated with quality. This year, largely because of terrible weather conditions in the 1957 season, the cost-quality situation has been aggravated to the point of crisis. Rayon staple, cotton's largest and most aggressive competitor, has a price advantage over cotton ranging from 8 to 12 cents a pound at the mill. The shortage of high-quality cotton, combined with this price advantage, has given a tremendous boost to the rayon industry's effort to take over cotton's markets by blending and substitution. Domestic cotton consumption, which has averaged close to 9 million bales over the past 10 years, threatens to drop to around 8 million bales this year. If research continues to improve the quality of rayon, as available information indicates will surely be the case, and if rayon continues to enjoy its present significant price advantage, still further losses in cotton consumption can be predicted.

The irony of the situation is that, on a cost basis, cotton is potentially the most economical fiber to produce. The opportunities to employ research to cut cost-producing losses can clearly be seen. Three of these, on the average of the whole crop, add almost 12 cents to the cost of producing each pound of cotton: these are weeds, diseases, and insects.

Cotton farmers spend an average of about $20 per acre each year in their efforts to control weeds. This currently amounts to about one-third of a billion dollars each year. This tremendous expense, and the losses in yield and in quality which result from weeds, offer a striking opportunity for research. There is an opportunity of at least equal magnitude in controlling cotton diseases, and also in controlling insects. Mr. Robert R. Coker will describe to you in more detail the problem with one insect, the boll weevil, and the opportunity for research there. Research offers other ways of reducing the cost of cotton production. Some of these relate to cutting other losses, such as the more than 50 percent of the cotton bolls lost through premature shedding. Others offer possibilities for increased yields through breeding and various production practices. But the main points are these: (1) There are real opportunities to reduce the cost of cotton production through research; (2) the potential for making significant cost reductions is much better for cotton than for its chief competitor in price, rayon; (3) the utilization of cotton, and the future of the cotton industry, depends on cotton's being competitive in cost as well as in quality; (4) cotton does not at present have the research backing necessary to realize its potential in cost reduction; and (5) without an adequate research program on cost, the attrition of cotton's markets can be expected to continue.

I should like to make two other broad points which seem to us illustrate both the weakness of cotton's competitive situation today and its potential through research. The first is in the marketing of cotton. Technological advances in both the production-harvesting-ginning area and in mill processing have placed new and different emphasis and requirements on the qualities and quality measurement in cotton. In the marketing of this $2 billion agricultural commodity, quality evaluation has not kept pace with these technological developments. Producers and ginners seem to be working toward one level of quality while mills seek another. This has all acted to aggravate further the quality-cost situation in which the industry finds itself. Yet there are definite, clear, and promising opportunities for research to provide new measurements of quality and better interpretations of the true value of cotton. The present programs of the Department recognize this opportunity but fall woefully short of the real effort that could and should be made in this tremendously vital area today.

The second broad point relates to utilization research. While the President's budget recognized the vital importance of this area of study and provided for an increase of $4.6 million, the House reduced this amount by half. The House committee fully recognized the importance of utilization research and the need for substantial increases, but expressed some doubt that personnel and facilities would permit a sound expansion to the full amount recommended in the budget. We should like to point out that there are available to the Department, through contract, more than enough personnel and fully adequate facilities for research

on cotton. As a matter of fact, more and more of these personnel and facilities are recruited for research on synthetics each year, simply in default of support on behalf of cotton.

Referring, then, to the 5-year program which the farm organizations recommended 3 years ago, we respectfully urge that your Committee approve an increase above the House-passed bill in the amount of $424 million. Of this approximately $17 million would be for USDA, $12 million for State experiment stations, and $121⁄2 million for cooperative extension work. These are the amounts necessary to put us back on the schedule of the financing plan. In a year in which Congress and the administration are attempting to stimulate the economy by increased Federal spending for public works, one of the more beneficial expenditures the Government can make, in our opinion, would be in agricultural research. Money spent for research will not only have a lasting benefit on the economy, but will also result in additional employment in agriculture and its dependent industries. Therefore, from an immediate and long-range viewpoint, we think it an opportune time to catch up on the 5-year financing plan for agricultural research. Results under long range research and extension program since inception in fiscal 1956 [In millions of dollars]

NOTE.-All increases shown are for program activities and exclude capital outlays and retirement costs.

NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA

STATEMENTS BY MR. GEORGE S. BUCK, JR. ASSISTANT TO THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

INCREASE IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Mr. Buck. My statement sets forth our position on agricultural research and extension, and cites the urgent need for substantial increase in agricultural research and cotton research in particular.

Many of the difficulties of the industry could have been avoided if we had had more research in the past. Many of the difficulties we foresee now can still be avoided with much greater research effort.

This statement supports a 5-year plan which the Council and other agricultural and commodity organizations developed 3 years ago to achieve an adequate agricultural research program.

In 1957 a substantial start was made toward implementing a program about like that.

Senator ELLENDER. How much are you requesting?

AMOUNT REQUESTED

Mr. BUCK. I have appended a statement showing those amounts. Our requests are designed to put us back on the schedule covered for by the program.