Mr. GODFREY. We have a budget item to explain later covering the payments under the soil bank.

În 1962 we had 25.7 million acres in the Conservation Reserve program. And if you will recall, there was a special statutory authorization of $15 million given to try to take care of the 1.3 million acres that was supposed to expire at the end of 1962.

We announced that program last fall. We got about 700,000 acres of it signed up for a 1-year extension.

In addition to that 700,000 acres which will come out at the end of 1963, there is an additional 6.7 million acres that will come out unless some action is taken.

We would have an additional 3.4 million to come out at the end of 1964, 0.6 million in 1965, 2.3 million in 1966, 1.7 million in 1967, 6.1 million in 1968, the next big year, and 3.5 million in 1969, with the remaining phasing out in 1970.

But this shows where we stand now. We have about 25.7 million acres. And if nothing is done there will be 7.4 million acres roughly that would be eligible to come back into production at the end of

1963.

Mr. WHITTEN. In that connection, and for the record, you might trace the date of the original Conservation Reserve Act, the number of contracts, showing the origin and the length of the contracts approximately, so as to show why it is that we are continuing to have to pay for a program which many folks have come to believe was not the answer to our problem.

Mr. GODFREY. The act was passed in 1956. Contracts of from 3, 5, or 10 years were made. It was continued in 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1960. The contracts, as I say, usually had a maximum length of 10 years.

In entering into the contract, the producer made certain agreements, and the Government made certain agreements. The producer agreed to retire the land to a conservation use. In return the Government agreed to pay him for the retirement an annual rental payment and a percentage of the cost involved in getting it into conservation use.

Some of the conservation practices were not actually established until after 1960. Therefore, some of the contracts really run until 1970-a relatively few of them.

Now, the farmer agreed, in addition to retiring the land, to plant within his acreage allotments and to stay within his permitted acreage of soil-depleting crops.

But we are now fulfilling the contracts which were executed from 1956 through 1960. No contracts have been entered into for 1961, or 1962, except in 1962 we did enter into a 1 year's extension for those farms where contracts were expiring that year. Half of the land was signed up for an additional year.

In addition to extending, we did go this far: We offered 100 percent cost sharing on any of that land that was to come out if a farmer wanted to put it in trees, the assumption being here that if it went into trees that it would not come back into production any time within the foreseeable future. We thought this was a good

Our best guess is we got about 2,000 acres of it that was converted from grass into trees, on which we will pay 100 percent of the cost sharing.

Is that satisfactory?

Mr. WHITTEN. I think that is good for the record.

LAND-USE ADJUSTMENT-CROPLAND CONVERSION

Mr. GODFREY. Now, this chart illustrates the counties and the work that is going on in the area of cropland conversion.

Mr. GODFREY. The Congress authorized last year some pilot projects on cropland conversion to get cropland shifted out of intensive cultivation or the production of crops which are now in surplus and into other use. The Congress authorized this on a pilot basis.

We selected 13 States to operate this program on a pilot basis. We asked the agricultural agencies within the State then to select the counties that they wanted to use.

RECREATIONAL PROJECTS

We used some restraint. We said we could not go more than five counties in any State. And the funds are limited to $10 million nationally. We also said, "We also want to carry out some recreational projects, so we would like for you to limit your selection to at least five counties, not more than that."

In order to qualify as a pilot county to carry out this project, we had certain basic requirements, and one of the basic requirements was that there be a desire on the part of the people administering the program to attempt to carry this out.

Secondly, that the agricultural agencies involved, Extension, Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service, Farmers Home Administration, and the County ASC Committee, all be interested in getting this done. And, thirdly, that the people at the county level representing these same agencies be interested and want to make a success of the pilot project.

The primary consideration was that the county must be such that the program would be shifting to other use land that normally would be devoted to the production of crops.

They picked and submitted to the national group 41 counties, varying from 2 counties in Iowa to 5 counties in the State of Pennsylvania, the largest county in Maine being selected there, 4 counties in North Carolina, 4 in Georgia also, 4 in Mississippi, 2 in Missouri, 3 in Kansas, 4 in Wisconsin, 3 in Minnesota, 4 in Idaho, 2 in North Dakota, and 3 in Utah.

Now, in addition to these cropland retirement programs in the 41 counties, we have made available to any county in the United States and we are asking that each State have at least 1 of these trial projects for recreation, converting of land that is now engaged in production of crops to a recreational project. This has guidelines established for it also.

The guidelines are by necessity more restrictive for this year than they may be for future years if it is an ongoing program.

The shaded areas show the counties that have already been approved for a recreational project. We have about 21 additional counties which are now being considered and are about ready for approval of recreational projects.

Mr. WHITTEN. I have before me the announcement of March 1 about the 27 counties. Are those the ones you have there in the shaded area?

Mr. GODFREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITTEN. And there are 21 additional counties?

Mr. GODFREY. Twenty-one additional that are being considered. And I expect we have at least 50 other proposals in now which have not been processed through the offices here in Washington.