The U.S. Department of Agriculture has accelerated their planned program, the Texas Animal Health Commission has designated various funds for screw-worm eradication, and these agencies have executed a memorandum of understanding with the Southwest Animal Health Research Foundation on a screw-worm eradication program. An eradication program now is a reality in the Southwest. As a result of the efforts of those interested, and dedicated individuals who have spent much time and money on this program, Louisiana and Oklahoma now are organized and in the process of collecting producer funds for this program. Livestock producers in New Mexico have assured the trustees of the foundation that they also will participate in a war on the screw-worm. The screw-worm doesn't have a friend.

Members of the committee, we of Texas and all the southern two-thirds of the United States definitely have a problem-a $100 million per year problem; we have the scientific knowledge; we have a genuine desire to solve this problem; and you can be assured of the cooperation of the livestock industry. Livestock producers of Texas alone have over $1,700,000 in the bank to eliminate the screw-worm, and more funds are coming in each day; the Texas Animal Health Commission is spending most of its funds on the screw-worm eradication program; the Governor of Texas has given of his emergency fund to the program; the Legislature of Texas has a 10-man committee appointed to work with the Southwest Animal Health Research Foundation and to report back to the next legislature; the Southeast wants the threat of screw-worm infestation farther removed from their territory, which is free of this flesh-eating pest, except when he enters through Texas each year, and it is possible to eliminate the presently manned and expensive livestock control line along the Mississippi River which is maintained to control screw-worm infestation in the Southeast.

Members of the committee, I believe it can safely be said that no one knows what it will cost to eradicate the screw-worm from the Southwest. Many contingencies are involved in such a program. The USDA officials feel that $6 million should be available for the program, and all hope that it won't be needed. Those whom I represent hope that the whole program can be completed on less money, and the 75,000 livestock producers who have contributed to the program want it done as economically as possible.

On the other hand, the most tragic thing that could happen would be to have all funds depleted with the end of this flesh-eating pest in sight, and see him continue to grow, spread, and prosper on the $100 million per year bite he takes out of the agricultural economy of the Nation because of the lack of a few dollars. Therefore, we earnestly request that you approve $3 million for the use of the USDA in the screw-worm eradication program.

In closing, let me say that I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today, and that for 10 years as a member of the Texas Legislature I was on your side of the table. From either side of the table, I believe that a $3 million expenditure on a screw-worm eradication program now is a good investment of tax dollars. Thank you very much for your attention.

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. JOHNSON. I am appearing as general counsel of the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, and also on behalf of the Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers Association. Between those two, they have about 17,000 or 18,000 members, principally in Texas, although the Texas & Southwestern does cover the area.

We feel that this fundraising thing is very unique, and is something that has never been done before. The development grew out of a loosely knit organization known as the Texas Animal Health Council, composed of 38 livestock organizations. And when they decided to go to work on the screw-worm program, they formed the Southwest Animal Health Research Foundation, which is a nonprofit corporation to take up the funds from the producers to help eradicate the

screw-worm.

I am also general counsel of that, but I do not appear for them. They are a nonprofit corporation. and do not engage in any legislative

programs, so I appear for the producers. I also am a producer myself, having about a hundred head of registered cattle.

This might be of interest to some of you folks. The Texas A. & M. College has made up that little card display on the larvae of the screwworm fly. It does not add much to the hearing, except it is a point

of interest.

Senator MAGNUSON. You do not suggest that we let this loose up in the Senate?

Mr. JOHNSON. He is dead.

Senator MAGNUSON. There are a lot of wounds up there.

Senator HOLLAND. I notice your statement describes the number of members, livestock producers, in your two associations which are described here.

Could the record show: Do you have approximate figures of number and value of livestock in the Texas and New Mexico area that are affected by this program directly?

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, we have those figures, but I did not bring them with me. They are in our livestock census, and there are about 9 or 10 million head of cattle in Texas alone, plus the sheep and goats. Senator HOLLAND. Can you supply for the record-right away, because we want to close this record Friday-the approximate number of animals of each kind in the area that is directly cooperating in this effort?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

(The information referred to follows:)

TOTAL COUNTIES ORGANIZED

Mr. JOHNSON. I might state that when we started the foundation, we were projecting the program 3 or 4 years into the future, but the cold weather accelerated our program and caused us to try to raise our funds a lot quicker than we had really planned on.

At this time there are approximately 245 counties organized out of the 254, on a precinct-by-precinct basis, collecting funds from producers. We have had the cooperation of all the livestock organizations.

And as far as the publicity is concerned, we have had the cooperation of the county agents and the vocational agricultural teachers, of course. They cannot solicit or receive funds, but they have done everything that they could to help in the program, principally in the field of education of the public as to the program and its feasibility. Senator HOLLAND. You realize, of course, and your people do, that there is an element of experimentation in this program, in that it is quite different in many of its aspects from the successful program that has been completed, we hope, in Florida?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; we certainly do. And one of the things that we have said many times is that we are selling blue sky. And these ranchers have such a problem with the screw-worm that they said, "Well, we want to put our money down and help pay for it and get it started. We think it is a good gamble."

Senator HOLLAND. I congratulate you.

Any questions?

Thank you, gentlemen.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

STATEMENTS OF HERMON I. MILLER, DIRECTOR, POULTRY DIVISION, AND ARTHUR J. HOLMAAS, DIRECTOR, BUDGET AND FINANCE DIVISION

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Hermon Miller.

Mr. Miller, I notice you have a prepared statement.

Do you wish

to present that, or just have it incorporated in the record? Mr. MILLER. I think I might suggest it be incorporated in the

record.

Senator HOLLAND. Without objection, that will be done. (The statement referred to follows:)

Justification for supplemental estimate, fiscal year 1962, for "Marketing research and service"

This estimate provides additional funds for meeting the Department's responsibilities under the Poultry Products Inspection Act. The act requires the Department to inspect all poultry and poultry products moving in interstate and foreign commerce. The 1962 appropriation does not provide for a program increase above the amount available in 1961. However, the volume of poultry expected to be inspected has increased over 13 percent above the 8.2 billion pounds inspected in 1961. At the time the 1962 budget was prepared, an estimated 5 percent increase in volume was anticipated and it was expected that most of this increased production would pass through established plant facilities and could be handled by the inspection staff available. For this reason, no program increase was requested. Early in the calendar year 1961, however, it had become increasingly evident that additional manpower might be needed in 1962 to handle the greater volume and to staff new plants being constructed and additional lines being added in established plants. This possibility was discussed and considered and was brought up during the hearings on the 1962 appropriation bill before the House Subcommittee on Appropriations. It was decided that action on this matter should be deferred until program needs could be more accurately determined and the need for supplemental funds more firmly established. Ön August 4, 1961, a request was submitted to the Bureau of the Budget for the apportionment of the appropriation "Marketing research and service, Agricultural Marketing Service, 1962," indicating a need for a supplemental appropriation. apportionment was approved as submitted on August 18, 1961 and on the same date the Budget Director notified the Congress of this action.

The

Based on the experience during the first 6 months (which is shown in the following table), the outlook for the volume of poultry to be inspected has not changed from the estimated increased level.

Therefore, additional funds are needed to meet the cost of providing this service through the fiscal year 1962. To provide for handling the expanded workload, it is currently estimated that $650,000 above the amount available for 1961 will be needed. However, $200,000 of this cost is being absorbed this year through nonrecurring savings. The 1962 appropriation for compulsory poultry inspection included $500,000 to finance, on an annual basis, the increased cost resulting from the Civil Service Commission's revision in standards for grades of veterinarians. This reclassification of veterinarian positions did not go into effect until October 1, 1961. Further, the reclassification of certain of these veterinarians had to be delayed until later in the fiscal year in order to satisfy eligibility requirements.

With these savings resulting from lags in implementing the reclassification of veterinarians, it is estimated that the need can be met with a net increase of $450,000 in supplemental funds.

If the funds are not provided, inspection service beyond that which can be financed by available funds will have to be withdrawn from poultry-processing plants. Plants not provided inspection service cannot move their products into interstate or foreign commerce without violating provisions of the Poultry Products Inspection Act. This would seriously disrupt poultry marketing. Further, lack of inspection could expose consumers to health hazards of unwholesome poultry.