Extension has been criticized for failure to provide more man-toman on-the-farm contacts and work with individual farmers.

Mr. HORAN. That is a personal matter, though, is it not?

Mr. FERGUSON. In part. I think in part it is, Mr. Horan. The great complexity of work expected of extension people has forced us into working with groups and we have done less individual teaching than we used to do. As a State director, I sought a great deal of guidance from the Federal office in matters of policy, of program development, and of staff improvement. Unfortunately, the Federal office was often unable to supply the kind of assistance that we needed in the State. So, on accepting this position I immediately asked the Land Grant College Association for a committee of State directors and leaders to come together and help us chart a course. This committee consists of Director Williams, of Kansas; Director Sanders, of Louisiana; Director Varner, of Michigan; and Miss Scudder, of New York. This committee is in the process of studying State-Federal relations. They have set forth in a preliminary, tentative statement the following functions which they believe should be strengthened by the Federal office. The first function they felt that the Federal office should strengthen is administrative management to include fiscal, financial, personnel, and operations in both the Federal office and in the States.

They felt we should organize and direct all the educational activities of the United States Department of Agriculture; we should cooperate with other departments of Government in activities of common interest; we should maintain working relationships at the national level with nongovernmental organizations; that we should keep the Congress thoroughly informed of the programs, progress, and problems of the Extension Service; that we should provide maximum service to the States in developing and maintaining effective working relationships with the land-grant colleges and with related Federal and State agencies and with other organizations and groups; we should help them improve their administrative and their supervisory techniques; that we should help them with their problems of program development; program adjustment, execution, and appraisal; and in the development and training of State extension staffs.

The proposed budget for 1954 includes an increase of $130,572. That, gentlemen, will permit making a substantial start in developing the Federal office and put it in a position to give the kind and amount of help for which the States are asking. It is my feeling that the Federal office does not need a big staff, but rather a small staff of highly competent people.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. We have been very much interested in the statement which you have made.

Undoubtedly you know that extension work has been very close to this subcommittee over the years. You are discussing your problems today with a group that is friendly to the Extension Service.

Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ANDERSEN. A good many years ago when 4-H work was in its infancy, I collaborated with our county agent in helping to secure beef calves for 4-H boys to show. Also, I want to call attention to the fact that my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Marshall, has the distinc

tion of having a father who was the first county agent in the State of Minnesota. That was in Traverse County in my congressional district. Mr. HORAN. What years were they, Mr. Marshall?

Mr. MARSHALL. 1912 to 1914.

Mr. HORAN. He was in on the ground floor, was he not?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I am pointing this out to show you that we are interested in your work.

Now, Mr. Ferguson, we will insert the table which follows page 362, and also the tables on pages 363 and 364 in the record at this point, since they have reference to the subject I wish to discuss next.

(The data referred to is as follows:)