available so that they would not force cattle on the market and flood it. However, instead of providing feed in that area so as to try to hold off those cattle from an already flooded market, he went into the market and started buying cows which added more demand which created some more selling. That is based on my experience and it led me to believe that the worst thing you could do in an already flooded market was to add more cows. And I thought that you would save money if, instead of adding to the purchases, you had made the feed immediately available to enable those farmers to hold their cattle off the market. Mr. PAARLBERG. We did several things at that time. We made credit available to those people. We made feed available to those who could hold their cattle. We had a purchase program and we bought his beef and I submit that all three of these things were helpful. Mr. WHITTEN. Are there any further questions? Mr. SANTANGELO. Yes. SURPLUS FOODS FOR INSTITUTIONS Listening to the discussion about the school program, do you under any of your programs reimburse any institutions which house the senior citizens, the old men, are those institutions run by the welfare agencies or by other interested groups? Mr. LENNARTSON. Are you speaking about milk? Mr. SANTANGELO. Yes. Mr. LENNARTSON. No, the Special Milk law authorizes only a program for children of high-school age or under. With respect to the old-age homes, and so on-the nonprofit institutions the surplus foods are available to them and would be available to welfare agencies such as some of those in the city of New York where they have people coming to them to spend the day. Mr. SANTANGELO. I suspected you run into quite a variety of institutions like that-you do feed them? Mr. LENNARTSON. Yes. Mr. SANTANGELO. They do feed them? Mr. LENNARTSON. Yes. Mr. SANTANGELO. The chances are that they probably participate? Mr. DAVIS. They do have a situation in the State of New York that is a little bit different from the purpose of these donationswhere the organization goes beyond just the care of needy old persons. If the old persons or older person is needy, if the institution is set up for the purpose of caring for needy persons they are eligible for the surplus commodities. Mr. SANTANGELO. But not in the special milk fund? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; that is for children only. Mr. SANTANGELO. It might be a good idea to cover them because I understand the older aged people need milk as much as the younger people. Mr. DAVIS. They would be getting the nonfat dry milk in those institutions and cheese and they have been getting butter as well as flour, cornmeal, rice and some of the other commodities. Mr. SANTANGELO. Thank you very much. Mr. WHITTEN. We wish to thank all of you gentlemen. We do have our differences of view because feelings are very strong on the subject. But we hope that the differences will stay the way they are, on principle and nothing else. Mr. LENNARTSON. We very deeply appreciate the interest that you folks have always reflected in the programs that we are responsible for. We are happy to appear before you, and I mean that sincerely. AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM WITNESSES ERVIN L. PETERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE PAUL M. KOGER, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM SERVICE FRED G. RITCHIE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM SERVICE JAMES M. HUNT, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM ANALYSIS DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM SERVICE H. LAURENCE MANWARING, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, PRODUCTION ADJUSTMENT, COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE CHARLES L. GRANT, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Secretary, now we come to the agricultural conservation program, which is also under your leadership. JUSTIFICATION OF THE ESTIMATES Mr. WHITTEN. I would like pages 264 through 275 of the justifications, volume 1, included in the record at this point. (The pages referred to follow:) AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM SERVICE PURPOSE STATEMENT The agricultural conservation program is authorized by the provisions of sections 7 to 16 (a), inclusive, and section 17 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended. The purposes of the act include (1) restoring and improving soil fertility, (2) reducing erosion caused by wind and water, and (3) conserving water on land. To achieve these objectives, the Agricultural Conservation Program Service offers cost-sharing assistance to individual farmers and ranchers in all of the 48 States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands for carrying out approved soil-building and soil-and-water conserving practices on their farms. This assistance represents only a part of the cost of performing the practice. The farmer bears the balance of the cost and in addition supplies the labor necessary to carry out the practice. Allocations are made to States based upon conservation needs. Cost-sharing assistance is offered only for the practices considered necessary to meet the most urgently needed conservation problems of the farm, which would not otherwise be carried out to the extent needed. To be eligible for cost-sharing the farmer must make application therefor before beginning the practice. Conservation measures for which cost-sharing assistance is offered, include practices primarily for: 1. Establishment of permanent protective cover. 2. Improvement and protection of established vegetative cover. 3. Conservation and disposal of water. 4. Establishment of temporary vegetative cover. 5. Temporary protection of soil from wind and water erosion. Cost-sharing assistance is available in the form of: 1. Partial payment of the purchase price of materials and services needed by the farmer for carrying out approved practices, or 2. Partial reimbursement to farmers who have carried out approved practices at their own expense. Materials and services are obtained through local private sources where practicable. Rates of assistance vary by practices and by States and areas so as to make the most effective use of available funds. As of November 30, 1957, the Agricultural Conservation Program Service had 57 full-time employees and 1 part-time employee, all of whom are located in Washington, D. C. Summary of increase, 1959 (on basis of direct appropriation) Increase to carry out the 1958 program in the amount authorized. +$23, 000, 000 The agricultural conservation program is operated on a program or crop year basis and cost-sharing assistance is given to farmers upon completion of approved measures. Funds for cash payments earned under the 1957 agricultural conservation program, which closed on December 31, 1957, were made available in the Department of Agriculture and Farm Credit Administration Appropriation Act, 1958. In that act, the Congress also authorized the formulation and administration of a $250 million program for 1958 for which this estimate is submitted. Project statement (on basis of program authorizations) (1) An increase of $23 million on a direct appropriation basis.-The appropriation request for fiscal year 1958 was reduced from $250 million to $212 million, or a reduction of $38 million due to the availability of underearnings in this amount on the 1955 program. An increase of $38 million would normally be required in the 1959 appropriation in order to carry out a 1958 agricultural conservation program of $250 million as authorized by the Congress. However, due primarily to underearnings on the 1956 program only an increase of $23 million is required to carry out the program as authorized. The underearnings will be used to repay. part of the 1958 loan from the Commodity Credit Corporation, thereby reducing the amount to be repaid from the 1959 appropriation. Advance authorization for 1959 agricultural conservation program The Budget proposes an advance authorization of $125 million for cost-sharing payments to farmers who carry out approved soil and water conservation measures on their farms during the 1959 crop year. This reduction of $125 million below the present level of $250 million is proposed because of the general necessity to |