Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Mr. WATSON. Well, to a large extent. You will always have farmers, as you have members of every line of business, who will not take advice or information.

Mr. SINCLAIR. I mean to what extent do they make use of the information that is given out?

Mr. WATSON. I would say in my section of the country a very large extent. We hold field meetings at our station frequently on seed selection. We bring those farmers in there and carry them into the field and teach them how to field, select, and plant their seed. We take them over different plats of ground that have been cultivated, show them different ways of conserving moisture. Those farmers attend those meetings very willingly.

We have also had at our station some livestock feeding, where we are feeding home-grown feed to home-grown cattle and that information is bringing this kind of a realization to the stockmen and to the farmers, that it does not require a lot of machinery and a lot of equipment and a lot of expense for the average farmer to feed his feed to livestock or for the cattlemen to swap with the farmer, get together and have a joint proposition.

We have a lot of ranchmen that have come in together with the farmers, the ranchmen furnishing the cattle and the farmer the feed. They feed out the stuff and ship it to market. That is of advantage both to the stockman and to the farmer.

We have had a great deal to say in our "new deal" about creating a little human happiness among our people. It occurs to me that whenever you take away from our farming people the scientific information that will make more possible for them the realization of something from their own efforts that we are destroying an ambition that will result in a lot of those folks quitting.

I would like to say this in conclusion, that the amount of money that has been appropriated for these dry-land stations, over a period of some 15 or 20 years, has been an average of about $225,000. If you take that figure, $225,000, and compare it with what it has produced, I am doubtful that there has been an investment by the Federal Government that has yielded such returns.

We are appropriating money for a Federal building in a lot of small communities that will cost as much as $225,000, just for that one community. Now we are thinking of taking away $225,000 from agriculture, from activities that serve several hundred thousand people. The Federal building to which I have referred would serve only a very small community.

I think it is an inconsistent way of thinking.

Mr. SINCLAIR. It is false economy?

Mr. WATSON. I think it is. If it had not been for this information. think of the wealth that we would not have realized and the number of farmers who are able to pay for their farms because of better methods of doing things that we would not have had.

We would not be willing at this time to drop all scientific information in other lines. We would not be willing to drop scientific investigation on automobiles and say that the model of 1934 will be good for 1950. If we stop experiments in agriculture, we do not learn any more about agriculture. It occurs to me that it is in line with good business judgment and fair to agriculture that we should continue the appropriation. Thank you.

Mr. SANDLIN. We are very glad to have heard from you, sir.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1934.

HATCH EXPERIMENTAL STATION, MISSOURI

STATEMENT OF HON. MILTON A. ROMJUE, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. ROмJUE. I do not want to take but a few minutes, but I desire to call your attention to a matter which I hope may be included in the bill, and that is an appropriation for what is known as the Hatch Experimental Station in Missouri. This station, I am sure, you men are already quite familiar with.

Mr. SINCLAIR. How much was that appropriation?

Mr. ROмJUE. It was $5,000 last year and $5,000 for the previous year; then in 1932 and 1931 it was $10,000 each year. This station. was named for Colonel Hatch, who was a Member of Congress from the district which I now represent, and as you know, he was one of the pioneers in agricultural work. His farm was left to the State for agricultural purposes, and at the present time it is being conducted as an experiment station; it was a gift to the cause which he held dear to his heart and it is very important to the people. I think this was not included in the Budget.

Mr. SANDLIN. It is not included; it is omitted.

Mr. ROмJUE. It would seem to be a very grave mistake, at this time, to leave this appropriation out of the bill. I just want to appear here and call the committee's attention to the matter, It is a very important matter, and, as I stated, Colonel Hatch was so interested in the cause of agriculture that he left what he had to this. cause. I was here when this matter was first taken up; when the State and the Government both stepped in and aided the cause. Mr. HART. It all tends to stimulate production?

Mr. ROмJUE. Not altogether to stimulate production; it experiments in the best methods as well as production. I would think that Congress at this time would not want to refuse to recognize this project under the circumstances now existing, and I would like to have included, if you will, a similar appropriation which has been carried for the last 2 years.

Mr. CANNON. Judge Romjue, is it not a fact that the Hatch Experiment Station is widely visited by farmers and dairymen, from Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois, seeking information on modern dairy methods?

Mr. ROмJUE. I am sure that is true.

Mr. CANNON. And that the demonstrations there are materially aiding dairying in our section of the Middle West?

Mr. ROMJUE. There is no question about that. Every man concerned with agriculture and the methods of handling dairy products, knows the Hatch station

Mr. HART. Don't you think that these various dairy experiment stations contribute to the overproduction of the dairying industry? Mr. ROMJUE. That might be said of any experiment station. Mr. HART. Everybody seems to want to do something for agriculture; we have done so much that we have overstimulated it. Consequently, as our production goes up, prices go down in inverse ratio. Mr. SINCLAIR. There is no surplus of dairy products?

Mr. ROMJUE. I think that is true that there is no overproduction of dairy products; I have never shared in the theory that we are overproducing. I am not going into any argument about tariffs, but when wo hear about people starving all over the world, even in our own country, and then for us to talk about having more production than we can consume is going too far. A few years ago, when we had the tariff bill up, I had the idea then, and I so stated in my speech, and what we needed then and what we need now is to get our products into the markets of the world. I said that the people were starving then in China.

Mr. HART. If they have not any money to buy our products, and we do not want to give it to them, there is no use in our growing it for charity,

Mr. CANNON. Is it not a fact that a recent report to the St. Louis school board shows that children attending school there were receiv ing insufficient milk?

Mr. ROMJUE. That is true.

Mr. CANNON. And is it not a fact that within the last week in Washington, Mrs. Roosevelt, herself, intervened to see that children received 5,000 pints of milk daily? I do not think that we can say that we have an overproduction of milk, as long as any school child in the United States is undernourished for the need of milk. It is the ideal food.

Mr. HART. If we had more and the machinery to get it to them, we would have the same situation.

Mr. CANNON. Going back to the question of economy, and we are told that the Budget Bureau eliminated the appropriation for the Hatch experiment station on the plea of economy. It has been testified here all the data collected and all of the work which has been done up to this time at the Hatch Station will be lost if the station is discontinued. Don't you think it would be poor economy for us to waste this work and data accumulated at a cost of probably $50,000-and which may be said to be invested here in addition to the expense of moving herd and equipment merely to save $4,500?

Mr. ROMJUE. I think that would be a very grave mistake, to eliminate this station; there is no question about that. The item is small, compared with other expenditures we are making. Taking i into consideration the original cost, the service rendered by Colonel Hatch, himself, and the gift of his farm, nothing would discourage agriculture more than for Congress to refuse a small item like this, and one does not have to turn to the records to see that we have spent millions and are spending millions and we are not sure yet of what we get.

Mr. CANNON. I would like to ask a further question. It is my understanding that this station was established, not only to fill a need in the experimental service of the Department and for the benefit which it affords the dairy industry, but as a memorial to Colonel Hatch who initiated this work.

Mr. ROмJUE. I think Colonel Hatch's record left quite a memorial in itself. I do feel, however, as I stated a moment ago, that it would look like we have taken a very superficial view, and, I think, to neglect taking care of this would be quite a mistake; I do not know anything more I can say to you, except this, that I am still of the opinion which I have always maintained, that what we are troubled

about is competition with things that the farmers ought not to have to compete with, rather an under-consumption instead of overproduction.

Mr. THURSTON. Milk is one food that does not have to be processed, and you do not have to waste part of it, the bone or the hull or the like, which is not edible; all can be used.

Mr. ROмJUE. That is true.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1934.

IRRIGATION RESEARCH

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. HOEPPEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. SANDLIN. The committee will be glad to hear you now, Mr. Hoeppel.

Mr. HOEPPEL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am thoroughly in accord with all that the previous speakers have said on dry land farming. We have very little of that in California.

I am especially interested in the retention of the appropriation for irrigation research. We have quite a problem in irrigation in Southern California; in fact, we are a desert without water, and I would like to see that appropriation put back in the bill. In 1934 it was $83,600. We have a distinct water problem out in California, which requires continued research; and in that connection I would like to insert in the record a letter that I have received from the secretary of the chamber of commerce of the city of Pomona, California.

Mr. SANDLIN. Very well.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. JOHN HENRY HOEPPEL,

POMONA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Pomona, Calif., January 15, 1934.

The House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: It has been brought to the attention of the board of directors of the Pomona Chamber of Commerce that no provision has been made in the proposed Budget of 1935 as submitted by the Director of the Budget for the continuation of the Irrigation Research Investigation of the Division Irrigation Bureau of Agricultural Engineering, United States Department of Agriculture.

The people of southern California have used every effort and much means in the development of our water resources which mean so much to the Southwest and to our community.

We also appreciate the most effective and useful work of the Department of Engineering as carried on in our vicinity, and as the work of this Department is so vital to the adequate development of southern California, should this work be discontinued, it will mean a great loss to the work already begun.

Our community is vitally concerned, particularly in three projects, and three investigations, and these investigations through the Engineering Department are naturally vital to the best interests of the community.

Namely, the use of water by the citrus industry, pumping water for domestic and irrigation use, and the most vital matter is the continued studies concerning the further development in the recharging of our underground basins or reservoirs. I hope that this important matter will receive its full measure of favorable consideration.

Respectfully,

J. M. PAIGE, Executive Secretary.

Mr. HOEPPEL. I would be very glad if the committee would consider putting back in the appropriations the amount required for farm irrigation research.

RESEARCH ON RABBIT INDUSTRY

Another very important and vital matter I wish to speak on this morning is a question of $15,800 which I understand has been taken out of the Budget, which pertains to research in reference to the rabbit industry.

That is one item which, above all, should certainly be placed back in the bill, for this simple reason:

Under the subsistence plan of homesteading, which is going to be augmented, it is the intent of the administration that the individual subsist himself as much as possible on a small pieee of acreage. Now, there is no better means in this world for men in that category to provide for themselves than through the raising of chickens or rabbits. Several years ago in California, where I reside, we lost a lot of rabbits through disease and death. We have a large rabbit industry. We lost a lot of them, and due, I believe, to the experimentation at Fontana, Calif., we have ascertained what causes the death of these rabbits.

Mr. SANDLIN. Do they eat these rabbits to a large extent?

Mr. HOEPPEL. Certainly. It is a big industry. They are shipping them in from Nevada. I am speaking not only for California but for Nevada.

The rabbit industry is noncompetitive with any other business in America. It could be developed perhaps a thousand or 10,000 percent in order to supply the furs which are required in clothing as a whole. But the big point involved is the fact that it gives a man a chance to obtain meat for his table, and it gives him a residue in furs which he can sell in order to buy groceries or whatever he requires. It is most essential. In my opinion we might as well give up research in medicine as give up research on the rabbit industry. It is vital to southern California and to Nevada and, no doubt, to other parts of the United States; and the amount involved for Fontana, Calif., is only $15,800. The saving involved, due to the fact that if these men can subsist themselves there will be less demand for help through the C.W.A. and other Federal relief, is self-evident. absolutely essential, and it will be beneficial not only to the people in California and Nevada, but to the people throughout the country, and it will react, no doubt, most beneficially in the disbursement of any possible future Federal relief, because the men can subsist themselves.

Mr. SANDLIN. We are very glad to have your statement, Mr. Hoeppel.

Mr. HOEPPEL. I thank you, gentlemen.

« AnteriorContinuar »