Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, could I make an observation with respect to Senator Dirksen's interrogation of Dr. Shaw?

Senator HAYDEN. Yes.

Mr. PETERSON. In looking at the conservation needs of the country as to how land should be managed to preserve its productive capacity and so on, and looking at the further fact that we are losing, according to our conservation people, about a million acres of land per year to streets and highways, city enlargement and to other uses, and as the American consumer looks further to animal agriculture, which is a more extensive agriculture, it is entirely possible, to me, at least, that we will move toward balance more rapidly than with the older, more intensive type of agriculture from which most of our problems presently stem.

FARMLAND GOING INTO HIGHWAYS AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Senator DIRKSEN. Do you maintain figures on how much tillable acreage goes into highways and so on?

Mr. PETERSON. We have figures in that regard, Senator.
Senator DIRKSEN. I wonder if you could insert that.

Mr. PETERSON. Yes, Senator.

Senator HAYDEN. That includes subdivisions of farms where cities are expanding?

Mr. PETERSON. That is correct, sir.

(The information referred to follows:)

According to available statistics from public records and reports, the amount of land in special uses, such as urban areas, highways, airports, and reservoirs, increased an average of about 830,000 acres per year from 1945 to 1954, as follows:

All of these acres are not cultivable land, however. Altogether these nonagricultural uses absorbed an estimated 350,000-400,000 acres of tillable cropland and pasture per year.

FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS FOR RESEARCH

Senator RUSSELL (presiding). Senator Stennis?

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to ask these questions at the improper place. Dr. Shaw is here and also Secretary Peterson. Whichever one would rather can answer my question.

First I want to commend the Secretary for his statement, the first paragraph, particularly, on page 8, which Senator Young has referred to, with reference to the branch experiment stations or the stations at the State level.

As you say, that is where a lot of these problems arise and frequently do not extend beyond that particular area. Also, that is where your men get the initial training. It is where they do so much of your basic work for nationwide projects, too. I have been out and

visited with these gentlemen in my State, Mississippi, and got so interested in it and they had so much to show me, that I spent the night out there on more than one occasion, and went through some of their experiment stations. It is marvelous what they are doing for cotton, small grains and related items.

STATE CONTRIBUTIONS

Senator Young said in his group in the north central part of the country they resolved for a contribution of one to one, one Federal dollar for each State dollar.

Is that correct?

Senator YOUNG. That is correct.

Senator STENNIS. And you said yours was 2 Federal dollars to every 1 dollar of the State?

Mr. PETERSON. I said the farm groups and State groups had made that recommendation to us, of 1 Federal dollar for payments to States to 2 State dollars.

Senator STENNIS. It is the reverse of what I said before. Presently your Federal contribution is what percent? Did you say 28 percent? Mr. PETERSON. The estimate for 1957 is 28.7 of all research funds being in the form of payments to States.

Senator STENNIS. That is 28-plus percent of your Federal funds. That will not reflect what amount is spent of the total level spent by the Federal Government. Do you have those figures?

Dr. SHAW. The States are making a contribution in fiscal year 1956 of $78 million in addition to Federal funds. In 1957, we contemplate that the State funds will go up to about $84 million.

Senator STENNIS. How much do you have for Federal funds for that year?

Dr. SHAW. In 1957 we have a request for a total of $102,897,000, and it is anticipated the States will spend $84 million, giving a total of $186,897,000.

Mr. PETERSON. Of that amount $29.5 million are Federal payments to States.

FEDERAL RESEARCH AT LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

Dr. SHAW. There is another factor that I think we should mention. A large share of the research done by our Federal agencies is done at the land-grant colleges. For example, on our production research in the Agricultural Research Service, 50 percent of all such money is spent in cooperation with the State experiment stations, in their own laboratories and field stations and in our cooperative stations in the States.

When we get to our utilization research, most of that is done at our four large laboratories.

Senator STENNIS. You have the so-called Federal men at the State branch stations. I ran into that and I found about as near perfect a field of cooperation that you can find, I think. You lose sight of which is a Federal man and which is a State man, which seems to be worked out very well and moving along in a splendid way.

Getting back to the figures for the record, you have now in this appropriation bill $29 million for payments to States? I thought it was more than that.

Mr. PETERSON. $29,503,708.

Senator STENNIS. And that is against $84 million in round numbers to come from the States?

Mr. PETERSON. That is correct.

LONG-RANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Senator STENNIS. May I direct another question? First I want to compliment you for your recommendations increasing these appropriations over the last several years. It seems to me as though_you have been on a mighty sound approach with a very good plan. I am still concerned about a long-range program. Could you outline just what your present plans are for your long-range program, and something with reference to the scientists available to carry out a longrange program?

I know that question comes up.

Dr. SHAW. We have discussed our research program with the landgrant colleges, and the farm organizations. We have estimated that we ought to double the research program in about 5 years. The farm organization recommendations were, that the annual increase be about $18 million a year of Federal funds, of which $12 million would be for the Federal research and $6 million for payments to the State experiment stations. At the same time, it was recommended that the States would increase their funds by $12 million a year, which would essentially double the program in the period of 5 years.

The States have increased substantially their funds for agricultural research for the last several years. I think over the last 7 or 8 years it would average an increase in State funds of about six or seven million dollars a year.

It is contemplated in terms of the recommendation that has been made that the States would step up their rate of expenditures as well as the Federal Government, and that with the $18 million of Federal money and the $12 million of State money recommended each year, there would be an annual increase of $30 million, or in the 5-year period a $150 million increase.

Senator RUSSELL. You would not be making any progress toward these 2 Federal dollars to 1 State dollar that you mentioned.

Dr. SHAW. Of the total Federal funds, this recommendation- was $12 million to the Federal agencies a year, and $6 million for Federal grants.

Senator RUSSELL. You mean that was the ratio recommended for future appropriations but not for total expenditures?

Dr. SHAW. That was for the future. But our current ratio, as Mr. Peterson indicated, runs 28.7 percent of the total Federal research. funds going as grants to State experiment stations. This means when we have the long-range program implemented we would have about 33.3 percent going to State experiment stations.

Senator RUSSELL. The States would still spend a great deal more at the State experiment stations than the Federal Government would? Dr. SHAW. Yes. You see, you have the Federal grant funds at the State experiment stations, and you also have the State money, and you have a large share of our Federal money being spent at the State experiment stations. So some 70 percent of the total program is conducted at the State experiment stations.