cut out and that work discontinued. I appeal to you members of this committee to give this matter your sympathetic consideration. I realize that we do not want to increase the aggregate amount of the appropriations in each of these large annual supply bills above the total recommended by the Budget, but I am going to take the liberty of saying that I do feel you would be preeminently warranted in restoring these small items even at the expense of some items in the agricultural appropriations bill. I may say very frankly that in our consideration of the items in the Interior Department appropriations bill we exercise quite a latitude of discretion in determining the respective importance of various items and where we feel that undue cuts have been made and that other items might much better be reduced we exercise our own judgment in making adjustments or transfers from one item to another where we feel confident that it is in the interest of justice and fair play and especially where we know that it is actually necessary and as the chairman of our Interior Department subcommittee I have always favored exercising our judgment in that respect and it has been very very seldom indeed, in fact I do not just recall now that our action has ever been disapproved by the House.

Some of us Members of the House from those States here now joining in this appeal to you have lived out in that country practically all of our lives and we know whereof we speak and when we, a dozen or so of us, come before you as we do this morning and make this one special request to your committee we cannot resist earnestly feeling that our appeal should be favorably considered. The Representatives from those States that are here, all of them would like to speak briefly to you along this same line. We appeal to your good judgment to protect our country that is in such desperate need from the irreparable injury that will result from the discontinuance of the important service to our country that is being performed by these agricultural experiment stations.

Mr. SANDLIN. I want to say, Mr. Taylor, that the committee, of course, will give serious consideration to the problem in that section of the country.

We do not want to shut off statements from any one else, but we have only a limited time to devote to these particular hearings. We have present this morning some gentlemen who have come a long distance to be heard, and we want to hear them this morning.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1934.

DRY LAND EXPERIMENT STATIONS

STATEMENT OF HON. VINCENT CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Carter of Wyoming would like to make a short statement to the committee.

Mr. Carter, the committee is operating under the 5-minute rule. Mr. CARTER. I think it would be a most serious mistake to eliminate the appropriation for dry-land agriculture. In the past the appro

priations have been invaluable to the farmers and ranchers of the Great Plains area which extends from Canada to central Texas east of the Rocky Mountains. The purpose of this work is to help hundreds of thousands of farmers who have established their homes in the semi-arid regions east of the Rocky Mountains.

The problems of agricultural and horticultural development of this area are studied at the various field stations to obtain the fullest information concerning soil and climatic conditions. Hundreds of farmers visit the field stations in my State every year to view the actual experimentation that is taking place there. These farmers are shown the different methods of tillage and crop rotation that can be best suited for the region where they live. These farmers can see for themselves what can be done in the way of raising diversified crops and in this way the Government is helping the people who have homesteaded by showing them how to make a living in order that they may continue on their homestead.

I heartily endorse what my colleague, Mr. Taylor of Colorado, has said, particularly in regard to the work of the field stations not entering into competition with commodities grown in the East. These stations show the feasibility of growing in this semiarid region certain fruits and vegetables which can be produced on a home garden scale. Under present economic conditions the importance of the home garden in maintaining the agricultural population cannot be overestimated

I remember distinctly last year when this subject came before the committee in the House, a number of Members from the East were opposed to the appropriation. A former Representative, Mr. La Guardia, stated that these gentlemen were confusing the purpose of experimentation with immediate question of production. Mr. La Guardia said that it was a lack of vision to delay scientific research until the time comes when this country needs greater production.

There is another thought to be considered and that is the large investments that the various universities have in connection with these field stations. I trust that the committee will give serious consideration to this important matter.

Mr. SINCLAIR. You do not believe, Mr. Carter, that we are ever going to quite fully solve every farming problem, do you?

Mr. CARTER. No.

Mr. SINCLAIR. It is not solved in any other section of the United States. The dry-land farmer is working out his problem, just as the cotton farmer is working out his, the fruit grower and every other type of farmer in different sections of the country are working out theirs. Mr. CARTER. That is perfectly true, Mr. Sinclair.

Mr. SINCLAIR. And we need these stations to guide and direct us. Mr. CARTER. Yes. If they took these stations away--we have some in my State-it would be just a paralytic stroke to the farmer. Mr. SINCLAIR. That is it exactly.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Carter, the committee will give very earnest consideration to what you have said.

Mr. CARTER. Thank you.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1934.

DRY-LAND EXPERIMENTAL STATIONS

STATEMENT OF HON. ROY E. AYERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

1

Mr. AYERS of Montana. Mr. Chairman, the elimination of the item in the agriculture budget for the carrying on of the experimental stations would indicate that the farmer's various problems are settled; whereas, the permanent and ever-present problems of the farmer and rancher are increasing, and with all this they have the new and unsolved problems incident to the depression and the recovery program.

The farmers and livestock men of the West and Middle West have always been the gamest of all gamblers. In pioneering the West, and before that the Middle West, they started out in gambling on soil and climatic conditions. To begin with, they bet Uncle Sam their homestead right and the filing fee against 160 acres of untried soil that they could make a living on it and ultimately put it on the tax list for the support of the Government. Up to the present time every farmer is betting his seed and his toil, every time he plants, that there will be sufficient rainfall to produce a crop, and if the rainfall does come he is betting his crop that neither the grasshoppers nor the hail will get it before harvest time.

Every time the livestock man brings on a crop of calves or a crop of lambs he is betting all of them that nature will bring on sufficient grass for summer pasture and that nature will be kind enough that he may produce sufficient hay for winter, to the end that he may mature his livestock into an income from the sale of beef or mutton.

If and when the farmer has won to the harvesting of a crop of grain and the stockman has won to the production of beef and mutton, then they have to "call" the hardest bet of the entire game; they must load the product of their efforts and toil on the train and gamble on the market 1,000 to 1,500 miles away, so far as the farmers and ranchers whom I represent are concerned.

If the grain and livestock products produced out in Montana and in other States similarly located are not of the best, then the railroads, the elevators, the millers, the stockyards, and the packers take the "gross" and there is no "net" left for the producer.

Now, in the face of the fact that we must produce good grades of grain and livestock in order to live at all, it is unjust that under a misleading economy we shall eliminate some 18 dry land and 8 irrigation experimental stations, as well as 15 field stations in 11 Western States situated as Montana is situated. To me, and I believe to all practical farmers and ranchers in these 11 States, this alleged economy can be classed only as penny wise to pound foolish, and if you will bear with me I believe I can prove this to those from all other States. Really, the seriousness of this situation leads me to believe that this appropriation was unintentionally omitted from the Budget. The most important problem today in all the country west of the Mississippi River is water conservation and its efficient control and use. Our Government is now spending hundreds of millions of dollars for this purpose. Indeed, in addition to the great flood-control

program, the reclamation projects and the large storage reservoirs, it has a vast set-up, and is increasing it, for soil surveys, control of soil erosion, study on proper use of marginal lands, and the like. Now, would it not be foolhardy to abandon and destroy these experimental' stations and their work when they are the very foundation stones for the information the Government must have if it goes on to a successful expenditure. of these hundreds of millions of dollars for efficient water conservation, control, and use.

In these 11 States we do not have sufficient rainfall, and it is necessary to irrigate or to plant and cultivate under dry-land farming rules; therefore, with us the conservation, control, and efficient use of water is all-important in the first instance, and in the other, proper dry-land farming methods are equally important in order that we get the maximum results from the limited rainfall. If ever the dryIand stations were necessary to the farmers and ranchers of these States and to the general plan of the Government they are more necessary at this instant. Each station has been so located as to deal with particular subjects incidental to that particular locality, such as altitude, rainfall, growing season, duration of winter, erosion resultant from both water and wind, and soil conditions in general.

No one of these stations can be substituted for the other and each locality be equally benefited; hence, there can be no successful consolidation of stations as has been suggested. Each station is an individual unit peculiar to its own locality, and the problems to be determined by each of these stations are becoming greater every

season.

The Agriculture Department is now paying millions to take lands out of cereal grain production, and proposes spending other vast sums in selecting and segregating marginal lands. Surely these stations will be necessary in the selection of these lands to be segregated; then I ask, in all fairness, can the Department under its present program consistently say we will abandon the stations by failing to put the expense for their maintenance in our Budget?

I do not understand that it is the plan to abandon these western border lands solely to the elements and to the coyotes, but rather to find out how to use all of these various areas in the best possible way, for the service of a high type of civilization. The people are there, and surely it is not the purpose, as I understand the plan, to drive them out, but rather to help them to a larger success.

Development under this plan must depend upon an ever-broadening knowledge of the resources of that great western country and how these resources may be best used for the present and future welfare of our people. We depend on what nature has provided in the soil, in the grass covering it, and in the rainfall. Our problems are how these may best be improved, interwoven, and combined to serve more effectively the people of that area. Surely no one can say that this can be done by destroying the present service agencies; rather, I am sure, everyone will agree that they should be extended and broadened. A closer " use line" is being drawn every season. What lands are best fitted for pasture and what pasture grasses shall be used to assist the native grass is the problem on one side of the line; on the other side is the problem of tilling, planting, and cultivating the agricultural lands, to the end that they produce the grains and forages best adapted to them; and then comes the combined problem of

a net profit by making each side of the line help the other, to the end that the farmer and rancher shall have a living above his cost of production.

For all these purposes it is necessary to have these stations. No one would say that the individual farmer or rancher could work out these matters by himself. Indeed, how helpless he would be in trying to work out all of these things individually. No individual farmer or rancher or any ordinary group of them could afford to do it.

IRRIGATION STATIONS

The irrigation stations fit "hand in glove" with the dry-land stations. The livestock raised on dry-land pastures and the hard grains produced from dry-land agricultural land work with the products from the irrigated sections. The livestock are fattened there for market and large numbers of them are wintered on the hay grown below the ditches. As I am speaking to you today, there is being fattened for market adjacent to one sugar-beet refinery in Montana, and on the products of the irrigated area there, 75,000 lambs; at another some 50,000 and at still another a like number.

These stations under the ditch are studying and experimenting on crop rotation, on the adaptability of certain crops to the area, and their studies and experiments are altogether practical. All classes of livestock, but more particularly sheep and beef cattle, are fed under the station's observation. These stations are also making actual experiments with their own-the Government's dairy herds, beef herds on a small scale, as well as hogs and sheep. These experiments have to do with the feed most beneficial for dairy production, beef production, pork production, mutton and wool production, and it all extends to summer pasture as well as winter rations.

1

Both the dry-land and irrigation stations in my State serve as centers for carrying on livestock studies within itself, namely, the breeding of beef cattle, dairy cattle, dual-purpose cattle such as milking shorthorns; also the breeding of sheep and hogs as well as poultry and bees, and the grades and breeds adapted to the locality. In addition to the big things these stations do, they are a Godsend to the small farmer, the dairy man, and the small livestock grower, and they fit into the very picture of the present agricultural program. In defense of both classes of stations, the dry-land and the irrigation, let me hit a high place or two on what they have already accomplished. Marquis and Turkey-red wheat, Grimm and Ladak alfalfa, crested wheat grass, and bison flax are some newer developments, each having its beneficial place and purpose, and each of these names are synonymous with the words "experimental station."

In Montana, and I assume in all other Western States having agricultural colleges and land-grant colleges or both, such colleges work in close cooperation with the experimental stations, in fact there is joint maintenance; therefore a failure of this appropriation, in addition to the other injuries I have recited, will greatly impair the State agricultural research and general agricultural educational work.

FAILURE OF APPROPRIATION WILL BE A MOVEMENT BACKWARD

In the great progressive movement now being put forth by the Agriculture Department as a part of the "new deal", I do not believe that the appropriation to continue these stations was deliberately