and was familiar with it two decades ago will realize that this good program which we have has just about revoluntionized agriculture in America.

I know places in my home county that it would be difficult for anybody even to recognize because of the great changes in the whole scenery. Actually the entire countryside has been changed. The farmers of America participating in these programs have built up the soil of America for future generations, and they will continue to cooperate in the program, but the point I want to emphasize is that they are not financially able to continue these practices of good husbandry and agricultural management unless they have the help provided by the ACP program.

The ACP program is the most comprehensive soil program that we have ever had. I know a great good has been done through the Soil Conservation Service, and that, too, is a popular program. I do not believe that anybody who understands the problems of agriculture would advocate abandoning these programs, but we are aware of the fact, of course, that one of the great farm organizations in America has set up formidable opposition every time we have tried to carry on this program. It is rather disheartening when Members of Congress from agricultural sections go out on the floor of the House in behalf of a soil bill or program which is of importance and of enduring benefit to the people of our Republic, to be met with telegrams that are being sent in by farm organizations and farm leaders to Members of Congress who represent city districts, urging them to vote to curtail and to cripple such programs as the Agriculture Conservation Program. Notwithstanding the opposition from these misguided and ill-advised leaders, Congress in its wisdom has continued these rrograms.

I think the money we spent on the acreage reserve of the soil bank program could have been far better spent in an expanded program of the ACP; but that is neither here nor there. That is water over the mill. If the money has been wasted or squandered or used illadvisedly, that is something we need not worry about now. I do worry about the crippling of the ACP program, and I think this Nation of ours can well afford to provide the $250 million which I understand will be needed to carry on the program successfully in the coming year.

I am not attempting to abuse your patience by undertaking to detail the great advantages of the program because I know every man on this committee is as well advised about the details as I could possibly be, but I did want you to know that every man on our committee-34 Members of Congress-are intensely interested in this program, and I think that every one of them will vote for the $250 million which we think will be needed.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Cooley, I wish to thank you for your statement. As you say, we on this subcommittee and you on your committee realize the value of such programs to agriculture.

Our studies show something like a million and a quarter farmers who are participating in the ACP program. The hearing this year will show the tremendous job done by the Soil Conservation Service. Behind that one of the factors was the ACP program which implemented that.

Whatever the relative merits of the conservation program, whatever they may be in the proposed budget, there is a reduction of 50 percent in this ACP program, where the farmers put up more than $250 million of their own money and a million and a quarter of them participated.

In this bill before us, it recommends far more money for the conservation reserve program, which is participated in by only 60,000 people.

Here is a program, SCS and the ACP, which benefits millions of people and on which farmers spent as much money themselves. These have been provided far less money than the conservation reserve which has about 50,000 or 60,000 people. I think that is an important factor to be given consideration.

Mr. COOLEY. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I would vote to remove the acreage-reserve phase from the soil-bank program. It is really a distressing situation to ride through the country and see farms growing up in weeds. It appears to be abandoned farm operations. Under ACP programs the farmers are encouraged to engage in good conservation practices and to rebuild the resources and the fertility of the soil.

Mr. WHITTEN. I know your thoughts in this connection, but I would like to have them in our hearings in view of your outstanding record as the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Under the ACP program, which is the one place where a farmer under the basic intents of the act has the right to put these considerations into effect. In other words, it is a program where the farmers themselves have some say-so in the type of conservation needs in their area.

Mr. COOLEY. That is right, and they are required to make a contribution. If you could go through the countryside and see farms that have given up row crops, under the ACP program, it would be a far different situation. That is the reason we could well afford to spend far more on the ACP program and justify every cent of it. I would like to file my written statement for the record.

Mr. WHITTEN. Without objection that statement will be included in the record.

(The above-mentioned document follows:)

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD D. COOLEY, OF NORTH CAROLINA, ChairMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman, I could not begin a statement to this committee on any subject, without first commending each of you on the tremendous contribution this committee has made through the years to the well-being of the Nation's agriculture. You well understand the problems facing the American farmer today.

I would not be taking your time if I did not feel that you have before you a proposition which would drastically curtail one of the Nation's most important farm programs. I refer to the President's recommendation that the agricultural conservation program be cut from $250 million to $125 million.

Mr. Chairman, without this program the Nation's conservation effort, not just in behalf of farmers, but for the future well-being and security of all our citizens, would be drastically curtailed.

It is my understanding that spokesmen for the administration, when appearing before your committee, presented in rather glowing terms the very substantial conservation accomplishments of the ACP on the million and a quarter farms which are participating in this program each year-and then these same spokesmen supported the administration's proposal that ACP be cut in half. This does not make sense to me.

Moreover, it is beyond comprehension how the administration can have arrived at its recommendations in view of the fact that their spokesmen have proclaimed throughout the length and breadth of this Nation that they were going to turn the policy decisions back to the grassroots instead of having them dictated from Washington.

We have heard for years now how these policies were formulated after consultation at the county and State levels. And yet, I venture to say that few, if any, Members of the Congress have received communciations from either a county ASC committee or a State ASC committee endorsing the administration's proposal to both reduce the amount of the ACP funds and to eliminate basic conservation practices.

It is incredible how the administration in the face of a serious national recession energized by the cost-price squeeze on our farmers, can recommend that the payment rates under the ACP be reduced from 50 to 35 percent. I am sure members of the committee are hearing from farmers just as I am, that available cash on farms is extremely short, and to insure the carrying out of adequate conservation practices we should consider returning to the higher payment rates in effect a few years ago.

Many farmers in my State, North Carolina, have indicated to me that they are deeply concerned about proposals to slash the funds available for the agricultural conservation program.

A national survey shows that farmers throughout the United States want the ACP continued and strengthened. In this survey farmers were questioned about the ACP, and 84 percent, an overwhelming majority, stated that they want the agricultural conservation program continued and a substantial majority-72 percent indicated they want the program increased. Only about 16 percent favored a reduction in the appropriation.

In view of the fact that the majority of farmers throughout the United States have gone on record as wanting the ACP continued or increased, I fail to comprehend proposals to slash the appropriations and eliminate some of the most popular and valuable practices.

Despite the gerat strides we have made in recent years, there is need for more conservation-not less. Intensive cropping is still destroying organic material faster than we are replacing it. Statisticians have predicted that 210 million people will live in the United States by 1975. In order to feed those people, our soils will need to be more productive and more fertile. If we fail to conserve our soil, we surely will reach the point where the cropland available will not feed our people. Such already has happened to once fertile areas throughout the world-for example in China, Japan, India. History gives us many examples of civilizations which failed to survive because their soils were neglected. The manner in which we protect and improve our soil resources has, and will always have, a direct bearing on our standard of living and on our chances for survival as a Nation.

An inflexible law of nature exists which must be obeyed in order that man can survive. That law is that the nutrients which are taken away from the soil must be put back in one form or another or the soil cannot support growth. Until fairly recently no concerted action was taken in the United States to guard against soil erosion. Although many farmers, educators, and congressional leaders recognized the need for action to prevent the rapid depletion of our soil resources, Congress only as recently as 1936 made the first step toward recognizing a partnership between food consumers and producers. The Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act was passed in that year.

The total conservation effort includes research, education, technical assistance, and credit, but the factor which makes all of these efforts reach their full potential in achieving soil and water conservation on many thousands of our farms is the financial assistance offered under the ACP. Because this program operates as a farmer-Government partnership the farmer and the Government share about equally in the cost of applying needed soil and water conservation practices on our farms. The farmers' share represents his interest in his own well-being. The Government's share represents its interest in insuring future supplies of agricultural products for our growing population. The assistance under this program is limited to the conservation practices over and above those which farmers would be expected to carry out with their own resources and on their own initiative.

Participation in the program is voluntary and all farmers are eligible to take part. In 1956, and these are the latest records available, 1,185,194 or 22 percent

of the farmers in the Nation participated in this great program of soil conservation as compared to 2,285,266, or 57 percent in 1952-the last year before Secretary Benson. The average payments to each participant has increased from $87 in 1952 to $174 in 1956.

The ACP is carried out in the field by the ASC farmer committees which over the years have done an able and effective job of getting the most possible conservation for each dollar expended. The Nation owes this farmerelected committee system a debt of gratitude for the tremendous job it has done in not just talking conservation but for getting the conservation job done. Officials of our agricultural colleges and universities and other leading conservationists advise me that this program is achieving on thousands of farms what 20 years of conservation research and education could not achieve alone. Today, the biggest boosters of this program include not only the farmers but also our agricultural institutions of higher learning and our Agricultural Extension Service.

Farmer committees, in planning and developing the ACP, have and use the assistance of the leaders of Extension Service, Forest Service, SCS, and others to insure that the program operations are sound. The farmer, therefore, has considerable technical assistance in carrying out the conservation practices on his land. However, the capability of the farmer to follow sound conservation practices does not rest solely on the technical assistance he receives. His ability to put into practice good conservation programs is directly connected with his finances. A survey was made by the USDA in cooperation with the State college in Iowa in 1952 to determine the major reason why farmers failed to apply the conservation practices recommended for their farms. The major reason was that the mortgage debts and high operating and living cost oftentimes make it impossible for the farmers to establish conservation practices unless they can borrow money to do so. This points up the need for the Federal Government continuing to assist the farmers financially so that everyone living in this country and the future generations will benefit from the fertile farmlands.

With these thoughts in mind, it is just incredible to me, as it must be to you, that the Department wages an annual battle to scuttle or sabotage this popular program. Mr. Benson frankly admits that farmers are caught in a harsh and. devastating cost-price squeeze. But he appears to think that if the farmer will only shut his eyes to the problems that face us, sooner or later the problems will go away. You know and I know this will not happen.

Perhaps the administration believes the cut in ACP appropriations to be sound economically. If that is the case, a costly mistake is being made which will surely cost this Nation much more than dollars. I have heard talk about more emphasis being placed on the so-called enduring practices at the expense of the liming and fertilizing practices. We all know that the Department has tried over and over again to hamstring the green manure and cover crop practices which are designed to meet the problem of intensive cropping and mean so much to vast areas of our country. The Department seems to be trying to classify the green manure and cover crop work as temporary practices in an apparent effort to mislead the public to believe they are relatively unimportant and unnecessary.

It seems strange to me that although they refer to these practices as temporary, in the 1958 agricultural conservation program national bulletin published by the United States Department of Agriculture, the major liming and fertilizing practices are listed under the headings: Conservation Practices With Enduring Benefits Where Properly Applied and Maintained. ACP handbooks state that the life spans of the liming practices are 4 years.

By the United States Department of Agriculture's own definition, the practices they wish to eliminate to make way for the enduring practices are practices with enduring benefits. I fail to see how a conservation measure, such as liming, with a life span of several years can be considered of short duration. There are few other conservation practices of such long-lasting benefits. Another basic fact is that we are still using up the minerals in our soils faster than we are replacing them. For example, on limestone alone we are currently using only 22 million tons compared with 80 million tons which our agricultural colleges tell us we should be using. Yet the Department says we should provide little or no assistance for minerals-this despite the depletion which has taken place and despite the fact that research has established that in many areas of the country it is virtually impossible to establish sod and other conservation cover without an application of minerals.

In addition to the organic matter and mineral problems, water erosion is still severe, and wind erosion is a major problem in the Great Plains. I am told that we have about 50 million acres of farmland that are subject to overflow and that most of our irrigated land is suffering from alkalinity and waterlogging. Yes, there is still much to be done.

It seems to me that if farmers are faced with the prospect of a drastic cut in ACP appropriations and the elimination of the most popular fertility practices then they have no choice but to become less active in their conservation efforts. The farmers' interest in conservation has been on the upgrade. That interest can be quickly weakened if the administration's proposals are adopted.

As I've pointed out, over 1 million farmers are now participating in the ACP throughout the 48 States. Over one-third of the Nation's croplands benefited from some form of conservation under the ACP in 1956. In that year 37 percent of the funds allocated to the States were used for liming and fertilizing praetices. It follows then that if the liming and fertilizing practices are eliminated, over one-third of the farmers' conservation efforts may be wiped out. Moreover, if the appropriations for the ACP are cut in half and less funds are available to farmers, their participation is bound to drop even more sharply.

In this statement I have pointed out that the farmers, who are in the final analysis responsible for the condition of our soils, want and need the agricultural conservation program. I have told you that the liming and fertilizing practices are of enduring benefit to the farmlands of this Nation. My plea to you is that we do not permit a letup in the conservation goals we have set.

Therefore, instead of thinking in terms of reducing this splendid program, or eliminating successful practices, I recommend that efforts be centered toward further improving and enlarging the agricultural conservation program.

ACP is basically sound. We are getting more conservation today than ever before for each dollar spent. Let's not let the Department destroy the program by reducing its appropriation, cutting out needed practices, or by reducing costshare rates to the point where farmers cannot afford to participate.

Mr. COOLEY. I have with me today, Mr. Chairman, a constituent of mine, Mr. E. Y. Floyd, who is from Granville County, N. C. He owns and operates a 410-acre farm there. He has a small tobacco allotment, small herd of beef cattle, and does general farming-corn, small grain, pastures, hay, et cetera.

In 1933-34 he helped to develop the old AAA program and served as State administrative officer, under the State committee, in addition to the tobacco extension work.

Then in 1943 he was employed by the Plant Food Institute of North Carolina and Virginia, a trade organization for mixed fertilizer manufacturers of North Carolina and Virginia, and be still holds this position.

He is in constant touch with farmers of the two States in meetings and in an advisory capacity on their farms, which gives him an opportunity to look at the ACP and other programs from a broad aspect.

Mr. WHITTEN. We will be glad to hear you, Mr. Floyd.

STATEMENT OF E. Y. FLOYD

Mr. FLOYD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a distinct privilege for me to appear before you.

It is my desire to testify in behalf of the agricultural conservation program and to request that the appropriation for ACP be maintained. at its present level, as a bare minimum. I am sure you know the original legislation, which authorized the ACP, also authorized an annual appropriation of not over $500 million with which to operate the program.