STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTED Mr. DURBIN. I will be brief in summarizing that statement. The American Sugar Cane League is an organization of Louisiana sugarcane farmers and the processors of that sugarcane. I am here today representing that organization to ask for an increase in the research appropriation for the U.S. Sugar Cane Field Lab located at Houma, La. That is the USDA experiment station. Senator EAGLETON. Did the Carter budget cut this appropriation? Mr. DURBIN. The Carter budget has cut overall, as you know, research appropriations. We don't know how much will be filtered down to that station. But we really need an increase over what is the current level. Senator EAGLETON. What was appropriated last year? Mr. DURBIN. About $921,000. Senator EAGLETON. For that experiment station? Senator EAGLETON. $920,000? Mr. DURBIN. $921,000, I believe, sir. This research, this increase of $450,000, is needed to pursue a specific area of research, what we call close-spaced cane, which I want to mention in a moment. But first, I want to say that we are fighting for our very existence in the Louisiana sugar industry. It is important not only to us but to the economy of a large portion of our State that we continue in the sugar business. We have been growing sugar cane since before Louisiana was a State, 183 years. We never found anything better▬▬ Senator EAGLETON. You are the largest sugarcane State in the country? Mr. DURBIN, No; Hawaii is larger. Senator EAGLETON. I forgot about Hawaii. Mr. DURBIN. And Florida is slightly larger. Texas is smaller than we. We can brag that we are larger than Texas in sugarcane. Senator EAGLETON. Can you give me the production figures for Hawaii, Florida, Louisiana and Texas? Mr. DURBIN. Starting with Louisiana, the crop just harvested, around 670,000 tons of sugar raw value; Florida, about 850,000 tons; Hawaii, about 1,050,000 tons; and Texas, about 80,000 tons. Senator EAGLETON. There is a big drop between your 670,000 tons and Texas' 80,000. The big three are Hawaii, a million-plus; Florida, 850,000; Louisiana, 670,000. Mr. DURBIN. Right. Not only the sugarcane but the sugar beet areas are in a financial bind because of the low price of sugar. We have an area of research that has been started by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Louisiana that we think may have the answer, not only to us, but also for some other sugarcane areas. Senator EAGLETON. What States produce the most sugar beets? Mr. DURBIN, California is the largest sugar beet State. Senator EAGLETON. Is Louisiana in the sugar beet business, too? Mr. DURBIN. No, we only grow sugarcane. Senator EAGLETON. California. Who else is big in sugar beets? Mr. DURBIN. Colorado; North Dakota is one of the largest. In fact, it may be pushing California for No. 1. The traditional method of growing sugarcane in Louisiana and in other areas is to plant the cane on rows from 5 to 6 feet apart. In Louisiana they are 6 feet apart. We plant the cane on beds for drainage purposes and primarily it has been traditional to do it in that way. We have found that if we plant the cane on the flat, do away with the beds and plant the cane in rows about 2 feet apart, which gives you really 3 times the running feet of cane as we now have, we can more than double our cane use. With the many, many problems involved with making that commercially feasible-in other words, we would have to completely revamp our planting style. We have already started work on that. Farm machinery manufacturers are helping us in that area. Senator EAGLETON. Are there some places in the world where they do, in fact, plant the cane in rows two-feet apart? Mr. DURBIN. No. We are the ones that started the research. Other areas are experimenting with this same thing. I might say that up to this point they have not gotten the dramatic increases in yield as we have in Louisiana. We are up against a proposition where our growing season is short. I think that is the reason that this particular type of practice will mean more percentage-wise to Louisiana than maybe any other area in the world. But not only the planting but the cultivation, the weed control practices, the insect control, the fertilization and the big one-one of the big problems is the harvesting of this cane. We have farm machinery manufacturers that have agreed to help us on this, the American Sugar Cane League, which is supported by the money our members paid, but we need the help of research scientists at this USDA experiment station, located right in the cane area. Senator EAGLETON. Do plants, such as International Harvester and John Deere, make sugar cane harvesting equipment? Mr. DURBIN. No. Louisiana has been making it many, many years. Senator EAGLETON. Do you have to use sort of a tailormade equipment? Mr. DURBIN. You have to have specialized equipment. We were the first ones that mechanized the harvesting of sugarcane. Senator EAGLETON. If this technology became economically viable, why wouldn't implement manufacturers be doing all the research so they could sell more equipment? Mr. DURBIN. International Harvester did get interested in this in the late 1940's and spent a lot of money on it and then found out that the major sugarcane harvesting areas of the world were not ready to mechanically harvest cane. In other words, the labor was so cheap that it didn't pay to mechanize. Senator EAGLETON. That was back in the thirties, though. Mr. DURBIN. In the forties. What happened with us at the beginning of World War II, in the early 1940's, was all of our labor handcutters left. So we had to mechanize and we did. During World War II we mechanized the harvest of Louisiana sugarcane. That meant the development of local specialized harvester manufacturers headquartered in Louisiana that are making harvesters not only for us but also for other cane areas who are now beginning to mechanize their harvests. More recently, Australia has become interested. They are major manufacturers of harvesters, but not International Harvester or John Deere. None of those are now making any harvesters. We have discussed this project with the people in the Agricultural Research Service, including Mr. Edminster, who is the Administrator. Attached to my statement is a letter from him in which he agrees that this is the area of research that holds the greatest promise to increased cane yields at Louisiana, and also admitting that Louisiana desperately needs to improve its cane yields for its existence. Senator EAGLETON. Wasn't an amount put in the budget that resulted in additional land being acquired in Mr. DURBIN. Two years ago, you authorized the expenditure of $450,000 for a new site for this experiment station. The site has been obtained. That is where it is. Senator EAGLETON. The increase you are suggesting would bring about the full utilization of that land; is that what you are recommending to us? Mr. DURBIN. Right. In fact, on some of this very land we have some of these experiment plantings now. The League has three agronomists, and our own staff, working with this type of research. That concludes my testimony. I know you are pushed for time but I would be glad to answer any other questions that you might have. Senator EAGLETON. No, I think that covers it, Mr. Durbin. Thank you very much. Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. NATIONAL LIMESTONE INSTITUTE STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. KOCH, PRESIDENT PREPARED STATEMENT Senator EAGLETON. The National Limestone Institute, Mr. Robert Koch. Mr. KOCH. If I may just talk off the record for a minute. [Discussion off the record.] Senator EAGLETON. Your full statement will appear in the record. [The statement follows:] STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. KOCH, PRESIDENT, National LimESTONE INSTITUTE, Inc. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that I have appeared before this Committee every year since 1947 and in view of the fact that you and your predecessors have led the way not only in restoring the authorization for the Agricultural Conservation Program many of those years, but have actually prevented it from being eliminated by OMB and various Secretaries of Agriculture, I feel that I am really just wasting your time by even appearing. However, I feel that we in NLI must go on record, not to fill the record with the innumerable justifications for the ACP inasmuch as the record of this Committee is so replete with them, but to reemphasize what you have enabled all the farmers in the Nation to do in partnership with their government for all our citizens. As we have fought through the years to escape the criticism of being just another farm subsidy, and as we have brought about a strong bipartisan support in both Houses for this greatest conservation of a Nation's Soil and Water Resources ever devised by man, I am a little appalled at the situation we are faced with today. Here we have one of the few farmers ever to sit in the Oval Office, and we have not only a farmer as Secretary of Agriculture, but one who established an enviable record as an ASCS Committeeman and then as Regional Director of ASCS before serving with distinction as a Member of Congress and as a Member of the House Agriculture Committee, and we have a farmer as ASCS Administrator and yet we have the lowest recommendation for the ACP-less-one since the Congress authorized the Program in 1936. And that one lower figure, as you know, was when the Nixon Administration tried to reduce the figure to Zero. As everyone knows who has heard me testify, I was privileged to be the first County Office Administrator of this Program in my home county in 1936 when $400 million was provided by the Congress under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. Many a year in the next decade we spent $350 million nationally for what was known as AAA and now ACP. If we had the same relative amount today, I would be testifying for over $3 billion as I sit before you. Obviously, that is a completely unrealistic figure, but I think many in this Nation need to keep this relationship in mind not only as we consider the ridiculously low recommendation by this Administration of $90 million, but as we consider what we are doing to our Soil and Water Resources. It is all very well to read on the financial pages about how American Agriculture is providing a surplus of food and fiber so that we can send $26 billion overseas to help us with our balance of payments. Adn it is very easy to compute the loss to the Nation of what is in those crops, but all too few, Mr. Chairman, compute as you do the damage which is being done to our greatest natural resources-our Soil and Water-unless we continue the national conservation effort which we began in 1936 and have continued under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. So, I would just like to leave it to you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of your Committee to not let this Nation forget its obligation, not just to today's farmers who cannot be expected to do the total conservation job on their own, but to future generations to whom we should leave a heritage of preserved Soil and Water Resources. Mr. Chairman, we hope you and your Committee will once again restore the Agricultural Conservation Program to a proper level so that the partnership arrangement envisioned by an enlightened Congress in 1936 can continue in consonance with this Nation's half trillion dollar budget. SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS Senator EAGLETON. That will conclude today's hearing. [Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., Monday, March 20, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, March 21.] The subcommittee met at 11:30 a.m. in room 1224, Everett McKinley Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Lawton Chiles presiding. Present: Senator Chiles. NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES NATIONAL TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION STATEMENT OF MRS. MARGIT S. GREENSPON ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID C. FULLARTON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT RURAL TELEPHONE PROGRAM Senator CHILES. I am sure you all have noted how we brought everybody up to the table. I wish we wouldn't run out of time like this, but I have approximately 15 minutes; then I have to leave. All of your statements will be inserted in the record in full. I would like to have you all cooperate with each other in taking a couple of minutes to summarize your statement for me. That is the best way that I know. Mrs. Greenspon, do you want to start off for us? Mr. FULLARTON. Mr. Chairman, I am David C. Fullarton, executive vice president of the National Telephone Cooperative Association. With me is Margit Greenspon to summarize our statement. We appreciate having our prepared statement in the record. I want to express appreciation to the committee for its support of the rural telephone program administered by REA and turn the program over to Margit, who is an eloquent spokeswoman. Mrs. GREENSPON. NTCA is a nonprofit trade organization representing over 270 small rural telephone cooperatives and locally owned and operated commercial telephone systems financed through the loan programs administered by the Rural Electrification Administration. On behalf of NTCA, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee for not only the opportunity to present a statement of our position on fiscal year 1979 appropriations for REA, but for the |