About $5 million of these special cost-sharing funds was used under the 1963 ACP for these urgently needed rehabilitation and restoration practices, plus regular ACP funds for similar conservation work in these and other counties. Rehabilitation work urgently needed in some of these disaster situations could not be completed in 1963, and authority to complete that work in 1964 has been given in 14 of the windstorm-damaged counties of Oregon and Washington, and in 11 of the flood-damaged counties of Georgia, Tennessee, Washington, and Wyoming. After releasing the emergency fund allocations not earned in 1963 and recommitting about $860,000 for completing this work in 1964, there will remain in the emergency conservation measures fund under Public Law 85-58 something less than $5 million. Mr. WHITTEN. Also, I would like to include in the record a letter from the Department of Interior with regard to the House language concerning the wetlands area. Without objection, we will include that in the record at this point. (The letter follows:) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., February 26, 1964. Hon. JAMIE L. WHITTEN, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In consideration of Senate amendment No. 32 for H.R. 6754, the Department of Agriculture and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1964, the committee of conference recommended restoration of House language restricting use of agricultural conservation program funds for drainage of more permanent wetlands (types 3, 4, and 5). In view of this action the conferees instructed the Department of Agriculture and the Interior to expedite the implementation of action on wetland types 1 and 2 where necessary to permit desirable drainage to proceed without unnecessary delay (conference report, H. Rept. No. 1088, Dec. 20, 1963). There is a statutory restriction on drainage of types 1 and 2 wetlands only in the States of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Our Department has a definite interest in safeguarding such wetlands if they have significant value for wildlife. It is in these States that the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife is inspecting drainage proposed for cost sharing, and is acquiring various types of small wetlands under provisions of Public Law 87-732, the Drainage Referral Inspection Act. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has taken steps to streamline its operations in carrying out the drainage inspection program. It has already said that it has no objection to drainage in 48 entire counties and in portions of 21 additional counties where wildlife habitat preservation is not of major consideration. Additional steps involve (1) a further exemption of areas within which restrictions on drainage need not be applied, (2) an improvement in methods for determining the wildlife value of individual wetlands included in drainage referrals, and (3) adoption of realty procedures which will materially reduce the time required for appraisals and the negotiation of easement offers with landowners. It is believed that the above steps will appreciably speed up our screening of types 1 and 2 wetlands and eliminate unnecessary delays in the case of wetlands of low wildlife value for which drainage is desirable from an agricultural standpoint. Sincerely yours, FRANK P. BRIGGS, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. ACP COMMITMENTS Mr. GODFREY. Mr. Chairman, before you get to "Conservation reserve," may I point out we have a serious problem on ACP, insofar as paying for some commitments that we have already made in years past. There was a reduction of $5 million made in our actual appropriated funds last year. I assume that this reduction was made feeling that we would have underearnings to this extent. We did not have the underearnings. Therefore, we now have some outstanding 1963 obligations that we cannot pay. Mr. WHITTEN. What is the amount of those? Mr. GODFREY. About $5 million. Mr. WHITTEN. Has any effort been made to ask for a supplemental? Mr. GODFREY. No supplemental; it is included in the request for an additional $5 million this year. CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM Mr. WHITTEN. Now we turn to "Conservation reserve." Could we have the total amount that was spent on the acreage reserve part of the soil bank at this point in the record, and the amounts that are expected to be spent for the conservation reserve, the total cost by the end of the program. I think you will find much of this is shown on page 240 of volume 2. That shows also the participants by acreage. Mr. GODFREY. Page 239 shows this. Mr. WHITTEN. I would like to have those in the record at this point. (The material requested follows:) Payments to farmers for acreage taken out of production under the Soil Bank Act 1 Based on report of December 31, 1963. 2 Represents mandatory extensions because tree seedlings were unavailable. (The following is a brief outline of the conservation reserve program:) Current activities The conservation reserve program was enacted to help meet the agricultural surplus problem. Its primary purpose was to divert land from crop production in excess of current needs. It also provided assistance to farmers in establishing and maintaining protective cover or other sound conservation uses on the land placed in reserve. The conservation reserve was a voluntary program, under which the participating farmer signed a contract to withdraw a specified acreage of cropland from production for a period of from 3 to 10 years. He agreed to comply with any acreage allotments on his farm and to reduce his total crop acreage by the amount of land placed in the reserve. To protect the land taken out of production, the farmer also agreed to provide adequate vegetative or other approved conservation cover. He also must control weeds and take other measures as may be necessary to prevent grazing such as buildings or maintaining fences. The farmer's compliance with the contract binds the Federal Government to make an annual rental payment for the land held out of production and, where necessary, to assist with the cost of establishing the conservation practices on the reserve tract. Selected examples of recent progress About 24.3 million acres now in conservation reserve.-The conservation reserve program began late in the 1956 crop year and reached a peak of participation with the 1960 crop year signup of 28.7 million acres, the last year in which a program for signing up additional acreage was authorized. Contracts covering 300,000 acres expired at the end of the 1960 program, 2.5 million acres at the end of the 1961 program, and 1.5 million acres at the end of the 1962 program. During the 1963 crop season, conservation reserve contracts on 251,572 farms were in effect, covering about 24.3 million acres in all States except Alaska, Hawaii, and Nevada. The acreage was put in the program during the period 1956 through 1960. Conservation achievements.-Grass cover is the most popular of the conservation practices carried out on conservation reserve land, especially in the Great Plains States. In this area, the program is stimulating the return to grass and legumes of vast areas of dry land planted to grain under wartime needs. Contracts in effect in 1963 provide for grass and legume cover on 21.8 million acres of which about 16.1 million acres were new plantings and 5.7 million existing acres were maintained. On contracts in effect in 1963 a total of nearly 2.1 million acres of the conservation reserve acreage has been or is being planted to trees and shrubs. Treeplanting contracts are for the full 10-year period. When cropland goes out of production and is planted to trees, it is likely to remain out of production for a long period of time, perhaps permanently. Practices designed especially for wildlife protection have gained favorable acceptance by participating farmers and general approval of sportsmen and wildlife organizations. On contracts in effect in 1963, about 289,384 acres of the conservation reserve acreage are being devoted to wildlife cover and water impoundments for wildlife, including the construction of water control structures which will flood 9,207 acres of cropland. Rental payments continue through fiscal year 1972.-Since 1960 was the last calendar year in which additional acreage could be entered into the program, and a number of contracts will terminate each year in accordance with the contract provisions, rental payments are scheduled on a diminishing basis. It should be noted, however, that cancellation of contracts causing refund of rental and practice payments may reduce estimated disbursements for each year. Also where conservation reserve acreages are included in designated disaster areas and harvest of cover crops which had been planted on the conservation reserve acreage is permitted, the annual rental payment is reduced which reduces the total amounts to be paid annually under this program. Reductions due to emergency haying and grazing in disaster areas amounted to more than $2.4 million for the 1961 program, approximately $1.1 million for 1962, and about $1 million for 1963. Conservation reserve program-Estimated rental payments by fiscal years 1 Represents mandatory extensions because tree seedlings were unavailable during 1960. CROPLAND CONVERSION PROGRAM 13, 617, 720 11,363, 846 9,688, 294 3,602, 369 70,653 7,785 134 Mr. WHITTEN. I believe you covered cropland conversion in your earlier statements. What is the present status of your recommended legislation which would let you enlarge this from a $10 million program to a $50 million program. Has it passed either one of the two Houses? Mr. GODFREY. We had hearings in both the House and the Senate on expanded cropland conversion program last year. The House committee voted but never reported out an expanded program. The Senate passed S. 1588 for an expanded program which entailed the extension of existing conservation reserve contracts also. The expanded cropland conversion program that they passed went only to $20 million, however. Mr. WHITTEN. Have you operated in line with the report of the conferees last year in which they urged you to go along at the 1963 level for the present year? Have you abided by that directive? Mr. GODFREY. We have not initiated a program for 1964. Mr. WHITTEN. Just a continuation. Mr. GODFREY. We just continued the 1963 program that we had. We stated earlier that if it looks as if the legislation will not be adopted expanding the program, we will come back for a 1964 supplemental for $10 million and we figure we can get a 1964 program in operation during the remainder of this year. Mr. WHITTEN. Funds for that are not included here? COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION CCC INTEREST EXPENSE Mr. WHITTEN. Turning now to Commodity Credit Corporation, you have new language proposed relative to interest on unreimbursed losses. That is the matter we discussed earlier and we will have pages 207 and 208 of the justifications included at this point. (The material requested follows:) |