Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Kathe, we want to thank you for an excellent statement. Congressman Beermann, we want to thank you for your appearance before our committee. Again, Mr. Kathe, we want to thank you for appearing and for your splendid statement. Thank you very much. Mr. BEERMANN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we appreciate it. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1964. AGRICULTURAL APPROPRIATIONS WITNESSES JOHN I. SUTHERLAND, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, AMERICAN SEED TRADE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. KENNETH BEACHLEY, VICE CHAIRMAN, CONSERVATION_COMMITTEE, AMERICAN SEED TRADE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. NATCHER. We are pleased to have before the committee at this time Mr. John I. Sutherland, American Seed Trade Association, and I believe you are accompained by Mr. Beachley. Mr. Sutherland, we shall be pleased to hear from you. Mr. SUTHERLAND. Thank you, Congressman Natcher. We have three statements that we would like to file for the record and we would like to summarize them to conserve the time of the committee. Mr. NATCHER. The three statements will be included in the record in their entirety. Mr. SUTHERLAND. Mr. Beachley is vice chairman of our conservation committee and he would like to make a few remarks on the ACP appropriation. Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Beachley. Mr. BEACHLEY. Mr. Natcher and members of the committee, we, as seedsmen, are very greatly concerned over the budget proposal that a 1965 ACP of only $120 million, exclusive of administration, be authorized as compared to the current program of $250 million authorized by the Congress last year for 1964. Since 1957 this program has been continued by the Congress at the $250 million level annually. We have always felt that this program is one of the Federal Government's most effective contributions to the preservation of our basic, natural soil and water resources. It is the only program, of which we are aware, in which the farmer pays half of the cost direct from his own pocket. Yet the Government, for the common good the program accomplishes, could well justify bearing the entire cost. The public benefits much more than the farmer on whose land the work is done. A program of $250 million currently does not meet the minimum needs of the country for cost-sharing assistance in this vital work. Our observation has been that even with this higher level the normally expected accomplishments nowhere nearly meet the annual conservation needs. It should be kept in mind that current programs authorized at $250 million provide assistance at a much reduced rate of accomplishment as compared with programs at this level carried out in 1958 and earlier years. This, of course, is because of the fact that $250 million now will not produce nearly as much conservation as it would in the years when this level was first established by the Congress. The cost of conservation has risen as has other farming costs. A program authorization of only $120 million, exclusive of administration, would actually mean that only about $100 million would be available for allocation to the States to cover ACP payments to the farmers, the reason for this being the fact that there would have to be subtracted the amount authorized for the naval stores conservation program, the amounts that are transferred to other agencies that provide technical services on ACP practices, and the amount needed to make the small payment increases that by law must be made where the amount earned by a farmer on a particular farm is less than $200. The present program at a $250 million level has permitted a broad national catalog of eligible practices from which the States and counties are permitted to select those needed to meet local conservation problems. We are not aware of what alternatives the administration would adopt to adjust the present program down to a $120 million level. Conceivably, the authorized list of practices could be materially reduced. This, in our judgment, would be shortsighted. The other alternative would be to allocate the available funds among States and counties leaving it to them to make the necessary adjustments to conform with the reduced program. While this would be the preferable approach, we believe, it too would probably force most States and counties to greatly reduce their list of eligible practices. Under either approach, the progress in meeting conservation objectives will suffer. Other avenues of achieving economy should be sought. In 1944, the first year the ACP was limited to a program of soil building and soil- and water-conserving practices, and for 3 years after that, Congress appropriated for ACP $300 million, or roughly $275 million for farmers (excluding program operating costs). The present comparable level is $220 million, and the proposed authorization in the budget for 1965 is $120 million. The Department of Agriculture's Statistical Reporting Service and Crop Reporting Board show that the prices paid by farmers in January and February 1964 had reached 172 percent of the 1944 level. So the purchasing power of the reduced 1964 figure is worth only about $128 million in comparison with the $275 million authorized in 1944. If the 1965 national program should be cut to $120 million, its conservation purchasing power in 1944 dollars would be only $70 millionor only about one-fourth of the level the Congress authorized for those "base years" from 1944 through 1947. This means that a State with something like an average Midwestern State's allocation-$6 million in 1964-would get about $3.3 million in 1965 which would be worth only about $1.9 million at 1944 prices. If the program were adjusted to the $120 million level by eliminating practices at the national level, this would involve adjust |