be given for limited periods to permit county committees to reallot unused funds to other practices or other farms.

7. All State operating methods require that each practice approval be made for a definite amount. This enables farmers to know in advance exactly what the cost share will be for a particular practice. And it permits payments to be made to farmers much more promptly after performance is reported. However, since cash payments cannot be made before the annual appropriation becomes available, considerable delay cannot be avoided in the case of practices performed early in the program year. We invite your attention to this problem in the hope that some solution may be worked out.

8. The "concurrent operation" provision which was first made available to States in the fall of 1954 promises to overcome one of the problems which has existed since the beginning of the program-the budgeting of funds for practice approvals so that they can be used most effectively. Under this plan, during the latter part of the calendar year the current program may be operated concurrently with the program for the next calendar year. This offers important advantages in program flexibility and brings about more effective utilization of program funds. It is made possible because of the overlapping of program year authorizations, as each program is authorized during an 18-month period-July 1 through December 31 of the next calendar year. Each year some farmers have been unable to carry out approved practices. When funds are earmarked for such practices other farmers who would have performed needed conservation measures if assistance had been available are deprived of the assistance and the Nation is deprived of the benefit of the conservation. Under the concurrent operation plan, this difficulty can largely be overcome by approving practices during the period the programs overlap-to be paid out of unobligated funds from either program. Only a few States used the plan in 1954, but it now has been accepted generally as a major program improvement.

9. Early in 1954 it was found that in some areas estimates of the extent of facilities available for making soil tests were optimistic. This resulted in practice approvals being delayed in such cases. Since that time facilities have been expanded in many States and counties and State committees have been authorized to put into effect alternative methods for determining mineral requirements where facilities are not fully adequate.

These are some of the changes which have been made in the program in an effort to improve it. Operation of the program must be continuously studied to keep and improve its effectiveness. Suggestions for improvements are always welcomed.

Our working relationships with other agencies interested in the conservation of soil and water resources are excellent. In program development, the counsel and services of representatives of the agencies with direct or advisory responsibilities for ACP have been more extensively sought and utilized in each stage of that work We shall continue in every way that we can to build an efficient and effective ACP cost-sharing program and to fit that program into the overall effort to meet conservation problems throughout the country.

SEPARATION OF REGULAR CONSERVATION PROGRAMS FROM SOIL-BANK PROGRAM

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you, Mr. Koger, for your statement. One of the major problems we have here is to make a determination in this committee as to what course we should take.

It will be my recommendation that notwithstanding the soil bank and the bill which passed yesterday, which we all think will become the law, that we should not jeopardize long-time and sound programs by setting aside the regular operations and becoming dependent upon this new act.

Funds will be made available for the soil bank by the Commodity Credit Corporation for a time at least, and therefore I feel that we should follow the course heretofore followed, and that is to make appropriations for the practices which have been going on and where the Government has a financial obligation at the present time, and to make a proper announcement for a continuation of existing ACP programs. To the extent that you do that, of course, you doubtless will need less funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation. I can clearly see that the two programs are bound to mesh somewhere along the line but since this is a new upstart which happened to come in an election year, I am fearful that it might die at the end of the election, and come back again 4 years from now. I do not make that statement in the nature of a charge, but I make it to point out my reasoning for thinking we should go ahead with the regular activities and regular programs of the Department

Have you worked out any ideas in your mind as to how the new program will fit into the old?

Will it result in the removal of the cataloging approach, where the Department has been setting up a given list of practices for which the Government would pay its share of the cost of putting them into effect and with the right at the State and local level to adopt the practices that fit their particular area?

Do you plan to include the provisions of the new bill in a catalog approach where the local people can select them, or is your present thinking that that would be handled as a separate program? Again, I realize this is something that your thoughts, like mine, would be tentative.

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, our view in the Department is that the on-going programs-the regular programs dealing with conservation, SCS and ACP, shall be carried on as they have been carried on in the past, as distinct and separate, and continuing programs, and that the programs which may be envisioned in the soil bank will be identified as soil-bank programs. Where there are intermeshes or interrelationships, the practices that are approved under the soil-bank program should necessarily be consistent with similar or identical practices that may be available through the ACP program.

Mr. WHITTEN. I think that is sound. That does not mean that somewhere down the road, should the soil-bank program continue as a permanent measure, and the ACP program continue on a permanent basis, it might not be well to put them together, but certainly it should be after we have had some experience.

Mr. PETERSON. I would concur in that, Mr. Chairman. Necessarily, we will have to have experience with the soil-bank program before we can determine as to what the best administrative arrangement might be.

Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Chairman, at this point in the record I would like to approve the statement as to the policy given by Mr. Peterson of continuing our regular practices rather than making a new policy under the soil-bank program inasmuch as it is new. Of course, where it integrates that is fine, and I believe you endorse that idea.

Mr. WHITTEN. Yes; I do.

Mr. VURSELL. I want to lend my endorsement to that thought at this time.

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you.

I should like to observe further, if I may, that the soil-bank program, as you well know, has within it the objective of getting at problems associated with surpluses and distorted production. In other words, it has stabilization features to it as distinguished from conservation features. I think it is highly essential to the continuance of conservation from a sound basis that conservation and stabilization be kept identified and part, but insofar as the soil-bank program is in large measure a stabilization approach and has conservation aspects, those aspects should be closely integrated with the on-going conservation programs.

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you.

FARMERS PARTICIPATING IN AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM

BY STATES

I would like to have in the record at this point the table which would show the change in the last 5 years in the farmer participation by States, or even by counties, in the ACP program. I do not want to tie you down to 3 years. I would like to have it for about 6 years.

Mr. PETERSON. We will give you what information we have on that point. I might observe our recent information is that the farmer participation is showing some considerable acceleration.

(The following information was supplied :)

Number of farmers participating in the agricultural conservation program, 1950–54,

by States

1 Including the naval stores conservation program, and the 1952, 1953, and 1954 emergency programs. NOTE.-Preliminary figures indicate that participation in the 1955 program will be substantially higher than in the 1954 program.

ELECTION OF FARMERS TO LOCAL COMMITTEES

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I note in the justifications we have this statement:

Program administration.-The agricultural conservation program is administered locally by county agricultural stabilization and conservation committees. These committees are made up of resident farmers elected by the farmers they

serve.

It seems to me that while the farmers have been elected by their fellow farmers to serve on this committee, there have been regulations

that have been put in by the Department that have deprived farmers to some extent of expressing a free choice. Do you know anything

about that?

Mr. PETERSON. I am not familiar with that. I am not sure just what your line of questioning is pursuing here.

Mr. MARSHALL. I think that it was approximately 2 years ago that the Department sent out regulations to the effect that committeemen could not be reelected.

You will recall that Senate action changed the regulations which you sent out as far as the county committeemen were concerned. However, that did not, according to your interpretation, affect the community committeemen.

Mr. KOGER. May I say that the county committeemen and the community committeemen are eligible to be elected as often as the people choose to elect them.

Mr. MARSHALL. However, due to the misunderstanding that arose due to your regulation, it did mean there was quite a changeover in the election of community committeemen; is that not right?

Mr. RITCHIE. I think that for the first year that administrative rule was in effect, and before it was modified, there probably was a substantial change in the makeup of the committees.

FARMER PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAM

Mr. MARSHALL. I note in Minnesota we had an indicated signup of farmers of approximately 114,000 in 1952, and in 1954 that figure was approximately half, or 53,750, which indicated that something had happened to cause that rapid drop in farmer participation in the program.

Do you have anything that would account for that dropoff?

Mr. RITCHIE. There were several things that had an influence on it. In early 1953 we had a very heavy signup of farmers for the 1953 program. Many of the farmers were approved for a relatively small amount of cost sharing, and did not actually carry out the practice.

Again in 1954 we had a change in type of program. There was considerable difficulty in getting farmer understanding of the program. I think your State of Minnesota illustrates that difficulty of getting farmers to understand the changes in the program, to recognize what they could do in cost sharing, and the dropoff was very marked. There is a trend back up toward larger participation, especially for this year. Mr. MARSHALL. A number of people from various States have made comments to me that the farmer no longer administers his program: that the program is being administered by office managers in this connection. Would you think that that might have something to do with the dropoff?

Mr. RITCHIE. I do not believe so, because in a large part of the country the system of administration at the county office level was the same in 1954 as it was in 1952. The county committee was the policymaking committee with a chief clerk employed who carried out their policies. There probably was some difficulty in administration growing out of the changeover in States where the county committee had been working almost full time in some counties to having the administrative work carried on by their employees.