1. Wheel-type tractor, hydraulic controls, w/cultivators, cutter-bar mower, 2-way plow, side-dressing attachment_.

2. Garden tractor (gravelly type), w/cutter-bar mower, cultivators rotary plow, 100-gal. power sprayer..

3. Swather

4. Combine, 6 ft. (Allis-Chalmers or equiv.), self-powered, tractordrawn

13. Slipper seed cleaning mill w/elevators, bin hopper_.

14. Small hammer mill w/variable speed transmission. 15. Miscellaneosu items:

a. office furniture__

b. small tools____

c. other small equipment (includes office equipment).

Total equipment cost-----

Estimated

coat

$9,000

1,050 2,200

5, 500 225 1,000

490

1, 100

450

15,000

2,650

2,700

2,600

1,100

1,500

1,000

1,500

49, 255

A compilation of costs involved in intial purchase of land, construction of buildings, and equipping the Center is shown in the following estimate:

The Center will be staffed initially with two professional, one secretarial, and two sub-professional employees. During periods of peak workloads, two to four part-time employees would be hired from local labor sources. The annual cost of operation is estimated at $70,000.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the immense help of Mr. Mason La Zelle, General Manager, Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., from whom much of the statistical information was obtained.

Other Sources of Information were:

Leaman S. Ellis, Agricultural Extension Service, Kotzebue

Frank T. Bailey, United States Forest Service, Branch of State and Private Forestry

State Department of Natural Resources

Federal Field Committee

Agricultural Task Force Report

Mr. RESNICK. At this time, Mr. Montgomery, administrative assistant, but no relation to Congressman Montgomery, will read a letter into the record.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As Bob Montgomery is coming forward, this pertains to a matter in which I think the committee will be vitally interested in, that when we first started these hearings, you stated and it was so stated by committee members, that one of the main objectives of this committee was

o look into the new Federal projects and see how they are working in ural America. We have a situation here about which we have written Mr. Shriver. I sent Mr. Montgomery-he was on his vacation actually n Mississippi-to investigate these complaints that we had from three counties which are rural counties in my district.

STATEMENT OF BOB MONTGOMERY, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO CONGRESSMAN G. V. MONTGOMERY

Mr. BOB MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, as the Congressman stated, this letter refers to a matter which might be considered limited in scope and the fact that it does apply to three particular counties in the Fourth Congressional District of Mississippi. Further, it refers to the problem of compliance with civil rights regulations of the Office of Economic Opportunity and as to whether or not the compliance or noncompliance with these regulations is substantially hindering the application and effectiveness of Federal programs, in particular, the Headstart program operated by the Office of Economic Opportunity within these three counties.

I have personally visited in one of the counties and made the inspection and talked with school officials in all three of the involved counties. This letter was written to Sargent Shriver on June 23 and is a conclusion on the conversations and correspondence we have had with Congressman Montgomery's office over a period of 2 months:

DEAR MR. SHRIVER: In the past several weeks I have been advised of some alarming events in connection with the Office of Economic Opportunity's programs in Mississippi. Summer Head Start applications for Sharkey County Board of Education; Madison County Board of Education; Canton Separate School District, and Yazoo Community Action, Incorporated, have been denied funds because, in the words of the Regional Director of OEO, "because the local organization is unable to secure facilities that would be available to white children;" because "the Head Start Program would again be held in historically Negro schools." The refusal to fund these districts also made reference to the local organizations' insufficient efforts to recruit white children for the Summer Program.

The facts indicate that each local organization involved has publicized the Head Start Program and in many cases has made good faith attempts to personally inform the relatively few white children who are eligible, of the existing benefits of the programs. Certainly, in light of local feelings within the white community, which are not in sympathy with the efforts of the local organizations, should have been sufficient. The records of the Atlanta Office of OEO will indicate in detail what steps were taken to comply in this regard.

In regard to the location of the Head Start Centers. They have been located in legally desegregated schools, by and large, geographically located in the area where the vast majority of the children reside and they are located in schools that have completely acceptable facilities and are conducive to the success of the program.

Two local organizations vertified that the locations used were the only ones available because of summer classes and remodeling in the other available facilities.

All of the above-mentioned programs have been conducted by qualified people and in many instances by the very teachers the students will have when they enter the first grade.

Evaluations and conclusions are available to indicate that these programs have been a great success in preparing economically deprived students for entry into school.

School officials as well as Community Action Officials have travelled to Washington, and Atlanta in an effort to receive approval and at all times evidenced

good faith in attempting to comply and implement a program of benefit to the economically deprived within the framework of OEO regulations.

Office of Economic Opportunity directives indicate that regulations in regard to discrimination are applicable to all "grantees and all delegate agencies.” In this regard, I would like to refer to the application of these regulations relative to site location of Head Start Centers and recruitment of white children to the Child Development Group of Mississippi, a state level Head Start Program. This program is operated in two of the three counties heretofore mentioned.

Without exception, CDGM Head Start Centers are located in abandoned buildings in Negro neighborhoods, traditionally Negro churches or Negro homes which have been vacated for this purpose. Almost without exception these centers are not acceptable nor do they meet minimum standards of sanitation, lighting, or construction.

An example of this practice is Madison County, CDGM sites are located at Asbury Church, Cameron Street, Canton (Negro church in a Negro neighborhood), new supermarket building (Negro neighborhood, built by employee of CDGM and rented to CDGM), New Bethel Church (Negro church in Negro neighborhood), Sanders Chapel, Lee Street, Canton, Mississippi, Harlem Center. Franklin Street, Canton, Mississippi (old warehouse in Negro neighborhood). Lampton Chapel (Negro church, Negro neighborhood), West Fulton Street, Saint Paul Church (Negro church), Cedar Lane (Negro Church).

Locations for centers in the county are as follows: Murphy Chapel, Camden, Mississippi (old Negro school building condemned by Judge Harold Cox, Federal District Judge), Valley View Negro Community Building, Tougaloo (old house), Riley Hill (Negro church, west of Madison, Mississippi).

Without exception the facts indicate that all centers are located in traditionally Negro facilities in predominantly Negro areas. Without exception, the vast majority of these facilities are inferior.

In regard to recruitment of white children by CDGM. To my knowledge, after checking with school officials of the counties involved, there has never been a white child to attend a CDGM Head Start Center and without exception, the record will show that the school districts involved have in every instance taken more comprehensive, complete steps to inform the general public and children of all races of the availability of the program, as opposed to the efforts of CDGM. In short, the facts indicate that a double standard is being applied and only the students who have attended the school district and Community Action Head Start Programs are to suffer. If there are exceptions to regulations, which obviously there must be, they should be required to comply to the same degree or funds should be withheld immediately.

It is unthinkable that such a gross discrepancy in the application of administrative regulations could develop, however, it has, and it calls for immediate action of the Director of the Office of Economy Opportunity.

I would respectfully request that you investigate the mentioned discrepancy in the application of OEO regulations.

Sincerely,

G. V. MONTGOMERY, Member of Congress.

Mr. RESNICK. Thank you, Mr. Montgomery.

I would like to say that Mr. Shriver will be with us tomorrow. At that time, we will have the opportunity to discuss this in complete detail.

I would also say to my distinguished colleague, if he feels he would like to call witnesses on this very important subject, he may. As you know, the hearings are being extended after the recess, and I would be very happy to call any witnesses and schedule hearings to accommodate or look into the situation.

I would like to say at this time that the House is going into session at 11 o'clock. Because a witness of an organization started to testify last Wednesday and we ran out of time at that time, we asked him to please come back today. In light of that fact, in light of the fact that the testimony is quite lengthy and other problems are involved, I am going to suggest to my colleagues that we continue until the second

quorum bell rings, at which time, we will then recess and return within 15 minutes or an hour so that this very important witness has as much ime as is necessary. I would now like to call

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are going to have ime to do that this afternoon. We are going to have important votes over on the floor.

Mr. RESNICK. Well, I would say to my colleague that I do not believe that we must adjourn now. If the votes come, of course, we are going to have to adjourn, and possibly we will adjourn until 3 in the afternoon. But I think in all fairness and deference to the Farm Bureau and Mr. Fleming, we should make as much time available to him as is possible.

Mr. GOODLING. What was the schedule again?

Mr. RESNICK. The schedule is that when the second quorum bell rings, we will adjourn for 45 minutes, which will give us all time to answer the quorum call. Then we will return.

At this time, I would like to call Mr. Roger Fleming, secretarytreasurer, American Farm Bureau Federation, and director of the Washington office of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

STATEMENT OF ROGER FLEMING, SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, AND DIRECTOR OF ITS WASHINGTON OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY MATT TRIGGS, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to have the privilege of having Mr. Triggs, a member of our staff, accompany me here, inasmuch as much of this testimony falls within his area of staff responsibility.

I have just been advised that there has been a press release distributed. I have not seen one, but apparently, it bears upon the institution which I represent here today, and in view of the scheduled adjournment or recess, I wonder if there is anything in this regard, Mr. Chairman, that you would like to bring up now while I have a chance to answer it.

Mr. RESNICK. I will assure the gentleman that any charges I make, and I assure the gentleman that I am going to make many charges over the next many weeks and months, he certainly will have the same opportunity to answer as I have had to make the charges. As a matter of fact, I would hope that as the facts come out, a full scale congressional investigation will be launched into your office, into the many facets of your organization, so that you will have the opportunity to answer them.

Mr. FLEMING. Let me say that we welcome it and it could be that we could save you some time by providing most of the information, because our operations are an open book and we are happy to have them investigated at any time.

Mr. RESNICK. Well, Mr. Fleming, I am glad that you are here and not Mr. Lynn, because it seems that we got off on the wrong foot with Mr. Lynn, because as the record will show, when I asked him for certain information, he refused it. I am glad that you have taken this opportunity to be here and I would appreciate very much a letter from

you saying that you would welcome this investigation and perhaps that letter would help speed the investigation.

Mr. FLEMING. I doubt if I ought to take the responsibility of promoting this, sir, but we will be happy to cooperate.

Mr. RESNICK. Well, the record will show that you are interested in having a congressional investigation.

Mr. FLEMING. We would be interested in an investigation which analyzed the Farm Bureau and its operation and the other farm organizations, all of which have activities somewhat similar to ours. Mr. RESNICK. Right, and all its financial affiliates.

Mr. FLEMING. Yes, and that includes the other organizations, too, each of which has affiliates. We are happy to have that.

Now, I was not here the other day and have been out of town since. I am here today because Mr. Lynn had commitments that he made. several weeks ago for this week. It is my understanding that he was down to the bottom of page 2. Is that correct, sir?

Mr. RESNICK. However, in light of the developments of the last week, in light of the charges I have made, and I am sure you have read the Congressional Record

Mr. FLEMING. No, I have not, sir.

Mr. RESNICK. You have not read the Record?

Mr. FLEMING. No, I was just told there was an item in it.

Mr. RESNICK. I saw you passing it around, but that is all right. Mr. FLEMING. I have not read it.

Mr. RESNICK. I would like to read it to you.

Do you have a copy of the Congressional Record here, please? I do not wish to appear to be not putting you on record as to what I said and the charges I made. That is the reason, Mr. Fleming, we have the Record.

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, if I may inject a word here, I thought we came here to hear Mr. Fleming. In the interest of time, what is in the Record, all of us can read.

Mr. RESNICK. But Mr. Fleming did not, and the questions that I want to ask Mr. Fleming bear on the charges that I made. Therefore, Mr. Fleming seems to feel it would be unfair not to hear what I said. I think that my questioning is pertinent to this, because I am questioning his credentials to appear before this committee as a representative of the American farmer. On that basis, I would assume, sir, that it is proper.

(Mr. Resnick read from the Record, as follows:)

Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago Congress realized that individuals and organizations appearing before it might be tempted to influence legislation for their own private gain rather than for the good of the Nation. With that in mind. Congress passed the Lobbying Act so that everyone would know the nature of individuals and organizations attempting to influence pending legislation.

This law requires every lobbying organization to file an affidavit with the clerks of the House and Senate, reviewing the sources of its income, its expendi tures, its purposes, and its chief personnel. The intent of the law is clear: to let the public know who is influencing what legislation, and for what purpose. Thus, for example, when the AFL-CIO comes down to Washington to influence legis lation by testifying before the various committees of this distinguished House, we know who they are, whose interests they serve, and what their purpose is When an organization misrepresents itself or its purposes, or fails to properly reveal its true interests or the sources of its funds, the law must deal with it.