1963 feed grain program: Underplanting of permitted acreage by participating farms and overplanting of base acreage by nonparticipating farms, by regions

1 Underplanting arrived at as follows: Diversion subtracted from base on participating farms which provides permitted acreage. Difference between acres planted by participants and permitted acreage of participants provides underplanted acreage.

2 Overplanting arrived at as follows: Total planted acreage less acreage planted by participants provides planted acreage by nonparticipants. Total base less base for participants provides base for nonparticipants. Difference between planted acreage and base of nonparticipants provides overplanted acreage. NOTE.-Base acreages shown in cols. 1 and 4 excludes base acreage in the conservation reserve.

ONE-YEAR DIVERSION PROGRAM

Senator YOUNG. This is a 1-year diversion program? You only get diversion for 1 year under these contracts?

Mr. GODFREY. Yes, sir; this is 1 year at a time. The authorization for 1964 and 1965, of course, covers a 2-year program, but 1 year at a time. Right.

Senator YOUNG. When this land lays idle, is it summer fallowed? Mr. GODFREY. In some areas it is summer fallow and in other areas it is required to be put to a conservation use.

Senator YOUNG. The tendency, under a 1-year diversion, is to increase in yield when it comes back into production.

Mr. GODFREY. Much of the increase in yield is attributable, last year particularly, to favorable weather conditions.

Senator YOUNG. A 1-year diversion program does tend to increase the veild.

Mr. GODFREY. To a degree; yes, sir. But I would say the tendency on the part of the farmer is to be as efficient as he can every year. Senator YOUNG. When you let land lay idle, it naturally increases the fertility.

DIVERSION AND SOIL BANK RETIREMENT COSTS

What is the average cost per acre for this diversion?

Mr. GODFREY. It averaged about $19 per acre, and the total diversion and price support payments amount to $34.56 per acre. Senator YOUNG. What is the average cost of land retirement in the soil bank program?

Mr. GODFREY. The cost of the conservation reserve was about $12 per acre.

Senator YOUNG. You got some poor land in that.

Mr. GODFREY. Yes, sir. And we got land that was not formerly devoted to commodities which are in surplus. The figures show that

under the soil bank, roughly 40 percent of the acreage was formerly devoted to feed grains. Therefore, you were paying a total of $12 per acre per year over a period of years for land on which 40 percent was devoted to feed grains.

NO FUNDS INCLUDED FOR THE 1964 OR 1965 WHEAT PROGRAM

Senator YOUNG. Will this amount of money, you are asking for, take care of your diversion for the wheat program as well?

Mr. GODFREY. No, sir. This is for the operation of the 1964 feed grain program. Under the wheat program legislation that was recently passed, there was an authorization included which made money for operation of the wheat program available from CCC. It is estimated that about $8,500,000 will be transferred from CCC for this purpose in the fiscal year 1964.

Senator YOUNG. That is all. Thank you.

Senator PASTORE. Are there any further questions on this item? All right, sir; now you may proceed.

EMERGENCY CONSERVATION MEASURES

Mr. GODFREY. Mr. Chairman, I would now like to discuss the immediate need for supplemental funds in connection with the emergency conservation measures for fiscal 1964. Historically, additional funds have not been included in the regular budget submission since it is impossible to forecast disasters and it is difficult to estimate probable needs for emergencies in advance of their occurrence. Recent disasters have made it necessary to request additional funds at this time.

For several years, beginning in 1957 under the criteria stated in Public Law 85-58, the Congress has provided special funds for sharing the cost of emergency conservation measures needed to deal with cases of severe damage to farmlands by natural disasters such as floods, storms, and drought. Funds are allocated for use in counties designated by the Secretary upon a finding that a natural disaster has occurred and as a result new conservation problems have been created which (1) if not treated, will impair or endanger the land, (2) materially affect the productive capacity of the land, (3) represent damage which is unusual in character and, except for wind erosion, is not the type which would recur frequently in the same area, and (4) will be so costly to rehabilitate that Federal assistance is or will be required to return the land to productive agricultural use.

These funds are in addition to regular appropriations for the agricultural conservation program.

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we can put in the record these following paragraphs and come to page 5 which brings the matter to a current basis. These all have to do with past history and we can put them in the record.

Senator PASTORE. You have no objection to that?

Mr. GODFREY. No objection whatever.

Senator PASTORE. All right, then that portion of your statement will be included in the record.

(The portion of the statement referred to follows:)

HISTORY OF THE PROGRAM

As in the past, it is proposed that emergency funds be used to supplement the regular ACP funds-most of which are already committed to other areas and farmers to deal with these additional intense conservation problems arising from unforeseeable natural disasters.

The ACP emergency conservation assistance has provided urgently needed assistance to farmers each year since 1952-the first year this emergency type of assistance was authorized by the Congress. Since that time several such special authorizations have been provided by the Congress. A need for funds to assist farmers in carrying out emergency conservation measures to deal with severe damage caused by natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, and drought has arisen in 36 States during this period.

Some examples are the severe dust storms in the Great Plains area in 1954, 1955, and 1956 where this program provided invaluable assistance in applying emergency measures to prevent or eliminate disastrous wind erosion. This program

also was used to provide emergency assistance to farms damaged by severe floods in many areas especially in the Midwest where the Missouri, Platte, Wabash, and numerous tributaries have damaged lands from 1952 to 1960. Severe windstorms in the Northwest in 1963 also required the use of emergency funds.

In the New England area, severe hurricane damage was experienced about 10 years ago and emergency ACP assistance was needed in Connecticut and Massachusetts to help farmers rehabilitate their damaged farmlands. About $250,000 of emergency ACP funds were used in these two States. Funds also were used in 1957-59 in Louisiana and Texas due to hurricanes in that area.

OHIO RIVER VALLEY FLOOD OF 1964

Mr. GODFREY. Disastrous floods occurred in March of this year in the Ohio River Valley and adjacent areas. These floods did much damage to farmlands in these areas by destroying existing conservation structures and creating other urgent conservation problems due to severe damage to the land and its productive capacity. To correct the more critical conservation problems which it is feasible to correct, and which farmers will undertake this fiscal year if this assistance is provided, it is estimated that about $6,150,000 of emergency cost sharing will be required.

Senator HOLLAND. Has any of that been incurred or contracted for as yet?

Mr. GODFREY. Yes, sir. We have tentatively committed some of this and we have requests pending action on our part for additional commitments.

PURPOSE OF ESTIMATE

Senator HOLLAND. Does that total pending requests go to $6,150,000?

Mr. GODFREY. The total would exceed this for all the requests that we now have.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you.

DROUGHT DAMAGE IN THREE PRINCIPAL AREAS

Mr. GODFREY. Also prolonged and continuing drought in three principal areas several Gulf Coast States, several central Mississippi River Valley States, and a group of Eastern States has produced a practical certainty of disastrous damage to farmlands from wind and water erosion due to the loss of protective vegetative cover. The drought has killed grass and recently planted tree seedlings and thereby left the land subject to severe erosion. To help deal with these emergency conservation problems, and thereby alleviate the injury

to the economy of the stricken farms and communities, about $10,850,000 is needed for sharing the cost of emergency conservation measures that should be carried out immediately and during several ensuing months.

The situation is now so serious that we cannot afford to be without the means to deal with it immediately. In addition to providing emergency water supplies for the conservation pruposes being served by the sources of water eliminated by the drought, we need among other measures, to replant the destroyed tree seedlings and reseed grasses and legumes on denuded farmlands which will be subject to severe wind or water erosion unless the protective cover if restored as soon as possible.

Senator HOLLAND. How much of this has already been committed? Mr. GODFREY. We have not committed any of this, because we did not have the funds to commit it. We have the requests in the office.

Senator HOLLAND. What is the total of the requests?

Mr. GODFREY. The requests originally were substantially greater, but by a review of them and a further reduction by our State disaster committees, we have reduced it down to $10,850,000.

PRESENT STATUS OF PROGRAM

Senator PASTORE. Is all this work at a standstill?

Mr. GODFREY. Yes, sir; it is at a standstill.

Senator PASTORE. How long has it been at a standstill?

The fall

Mr. GODFREY. It would vary by States and areas, Mr. Chairman. Right now is the appropriate time to move in some areas. months would be the appropriate time to move in other areas.

Now, since the preparation of this statement, we have learned that there may be some required conservation measures to take place in Senator Holland's State. I understand, from the telephone reports, that they have four counties, Senator, that were practically flooded and, actually, we had to close the county offices in those counties, because water was in the buildings.

There will be some damage to this land and conservation measures will have to be carried out.

AMOUNT POSSIBLE TO COMMIT IN FISCAL YEAR

Senator HOLLAND. How much of this appropriation that you request for this purpose can be used or committed prior to the end of this fiscal year? You see we have 8 weeks or a little less to go.

Mr. GODFREY. This is normally a continuing fund and has been for the last several years. I think, starting in 1958, it was made a continuing fund until expended. We do not know exactly how much will be committed prior to June 30.

The position is that many farmers will be making their plans as to what can they do in the way of carrying out conservation on these farms and on this land. They need to begin making those plans and have a commitment for it before the end of this fiscal year.

The requests would be pending in the county ASC offices now.

CHARACTER OF THE APPROPRIATION ITEM

Senator PASTORE. Let us assume that this money would take care of you up to June 30 and you had a responsibility on July 1, 2, 3, and 4. Would there by any place where you could go to get the money, or would work start?

Could you then proceed to spend money under a continuing resolution that would be predicated on former resolutions, or is this a fund that stands by itself?

Mr. GODFREY. This is a no-year fund and we would go back to it. It is based on estimates. We do not know how many farmers will make the request.

Senator PASTORE. You are familiar with the practice of a continuing resolution, until the Congress passes a regular appropriation bill. The question I am asking is this: In the event that this money should run out, let us say by the end of June or early part of July, and we passed a continuing resolution, would that, in any way, save you? Mr. GODFREY. No, sir; it would not.

Senator PASTORE. It would not apply in this particular case?

NONDEFICIENCY UNBUDGETED ITEM

Senator HOLLAND. Let me ask you this question: Are you saying that this item is not strictly a deficiency item at all? You see, a deficiency item is supposed to be terminated at the end of this fiscal year if not spent by that time.

Mr. GODFREY. It is not strictly a deficiency item, but there is an emergency need for supplemental funds right now, and that is why we are making the request.

Senator HOLLAND. I understand that this has not been heard by the other body. I think what you need to do is show quite clearly, as you have not in this statement, that this is not strictly a deficiency measure, but is an emergency request which will remain available until used into the next fiscal year, if that be the case.

Mr. GODFREY. That is the case.

Senator HOLLAND. Then quote your authority for that, because you do not do that in the statement. This differs very materially from the deficiency item which you discussed, if I understand you, and also provide the history of previous appropriations for this purpose. Mr. GODFREY. That is right, sir.

(The authority for the availability of this fund is contained in the following:)

PUBLIC LAW 85-766

85TH CONGRESS, H.R. 13450

August 27, 1958

AN ACT Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, and for other

purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to supply regular and supplemental appropriations (this Act may be cited as the "Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1959") for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, and for other purposes, namely: