Revised project statement (on basis of available funds) 1 The original budget estimate provided that $10,839,000 of the available funds in fiscal year 1958 be carried over for use in the 1959 fiscal year. The revised budget estimate proposes that $2,000,000 of this amount be obligated during the 1958 fiscal year, thus reducing the carryover available for the 1959 fiscal year to $8,839,000. WATERSHED PLANNING The budget amendment eliminates the $800,000 decrease that was proposed in the budget for 1959 for project investigations and planning. The present planning staff would be retained in order to speed up preparation of watershed work plans. With experience gained to date and anticipated increase in efficiency it is estimated that 108 work plans can be prepared in the fiscal year 1959. Only 70 work plans were proposed under the budget estimate. It is estimated that a total of 71 will be prepared in the fiscal year 1958. The proposed speedup of planning would hold down the accumulating backlog of applications from local organizations for assistance in development of watershed work plans. It would also permit increasing the number of approved watershed projects to 210 and enable an accelerated program of installation of works of improvement. The following table shows the revised estimates on the status of project applications and planning under Public Law 566: Pilot watersheds.-No change is proposed in either the 1958 or 1959 works of improvement estimates for pilot demonstration watersheds. Public Law 566, watersheds.-As of March 1, 1958, approval had been given to initiate operations on a total of 71 watershed projects under authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566, 83d Cong.), as amended. Under the budget estimate it was proposed that only $6,750,000 would be obligated in the fiscal year 1958 for works of improvement in the 102 projects estimated to be in operation during the year. It is now proposed to accelerate this work in the current fiscal year by $2 million with funds originally planned in the budget estimate to be carried over to 1959. The revised estimate of unobligated balances to be carried forward to the fiscal year 1959 is $8,839,000. The budget amendment proposes an appropriation of $24 million for the fiscal year 1959 as compared with the budget estimate of $14 million. This increase of $10 million in the proposed appropriation, together with the carryover balances from 1958, would make $13,200,000 more funds available for installation of works of improvement in "Public Law 566" watersheds in the fiscal year 1959 than the revised estimate for 1958. Total funds available for this activity in 1959 would be $21,950,000. This is an increase of $7,200,000 over the $14,750,000 total obligations originally proposed for the fiscal year 1959 ($10 million increase in appropriation less $2,800,000 reduction in proposed carryover balances to this activity). The increase would be used to start an additional 48 new projects in 1959, which would make a total of 108 new starts, and to accelerate the installation of works of improvement. Increased activity would be planned primarily for areas where unemployment is a problem. The following table shows the number of watersheds in which work would be undertaken and Federal obligations to be incurred: BUDGET ESTIMATE AS AMENDED BY HOUSE DOCUMENT NO. 351 The revised budget estimate would provide an increase of $4,780,000 to accelerate the installation of flood prevention works of improvement in the 11 watersheds authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944. Both the local sponsors and the Soil Conservation Service are prepared to accelerate this program early in the 1959 fiscal year. Construction work would be accelerated to the fullest extent possible in areas of unemployment. The work in these watersheds is far behind the schedule contemplated in the original survey reports. Local people in several of the watersheds already have available the land easements and rights-of-way which they are responsible for providing. Designs and specifications for additional structural improvements are also available so that the Soil Conservation Service could proceed with the award of construction contracts to local contractors early in the 1959 fiscal year. Construction work in the watersheds would be accelerated to the fullest extent possible in areas of unemployment. Extensive damages to valuable agricultural lands from sedimentation and flood waters is occurring annually in these watersheds. The severe floods in the spring of 1957 in the Southwest, were a stimulus to the local people's desire to move ahead faster with the cooperative program of installing flood prevention works of improvement. More than $1 million in damages occurred in one watershed alone and it is estimated that flood damage could have been reduced by 71 percent if all the proposed improvement measures had been installed in this watershed prior to the storms. The following table shows by watershed the funds available for flood prevention works of improvement under the 1959 budget estimate and as revised by this amendment: 1 Includes $1,582,697 available from prior-year balances. Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Grant, that covers it. We wish to thank you. Mr. GRANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. EXTENSION AND STATE EXPERIMENT STATIONS STATEMENT OF KENNETH A. ROBERTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA Mr. WHITTEN. Our colleague from Alabama, Representative Roberts, has prepared a statement which we will insert in the record at this point: STATEMENT OF KENNETH A. ROBERTS, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FOURTH ALABAMA DISTRICT Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am here to urge this distinguished committee to make provisions for an increase above the budget of $6 million, as requested by the land-grant colleges for the extension and State experiment stations, with the bulk of this increase to be used to raise the salaries of the county agents. It is my earnest belief and contention that the county agents deserve this proposed increase as much as any other group in the country today. I am sure that I do not have to convince you gentlemen of the great contribution these county agents are making to modern agriculture in all parts of the country. I know you have in the past been a strong supporter of the Extension Service programs. But the county agents have not gotten their far share of increases in appropriations for these programs and I appeal to you today to see that this share is fulfilled. My good friend, P. O. Davis, director of the extension service at Alabama Polytechnic Institute, that great land-grant college at Auburn, Ala., has said there are two most impressive and significant facts about American agriculture. One is that American farmers have developed the most efficient system of agriculture in the world. The second is that the United States is the only nation that has established and developed the land-grant college system of finding facts through research and making them available for application by people where they live and work. Mr. Chairman, this program, as you well know, is taken to the people where they live and work by the hard-working, patient, and underpaid county agents. In Alabama, as in other parts of the country, the county agent is every where a farmer is trying to farm. He is solving problems, developing new techniques, helping young men and women to learn lessons about life itself. Through every public medium, through personal contacts, and through demonstrations, the county agents is reaching the man on the farm with sound, useful information. The county agent is the teacher, the adviser, the friend to the rural folk of America. I think you will agree, at least I hope you will, that these dedicated workers deserve a reasonable salary increase. Last year, these men were granted a token increase, but it needs to be made equitable. Right now, the Congress and administration seem prone to grant a substantial raise to Federal employees. I urge you not to overlook the county agents, and I respectfully ask that you act to include in appropriations an increase of $6 million above the budget to assure a much-needed helping hand to these county agents. SCHOOL-LUNCH PROGRAM STATEMENT OF JOHN W. M'CORMACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. WHITTEN. We also have a statement from our majority leader, Mr. McCormack, which will be made a part of the record at this point: CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hon. JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Member of Congress, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR JAMIE: I am taking the liberty of writing to you in relation to the schoollunch program, and the appropriation for the program for the fiscal year 1959. It is my understanding that $100 million was requested by the President for fiscal year 1958 and appropriated. Also, that the President has requested the same amount for fiscal year 1959. I respectfully submit, and earnestly urge, that this amount be increased for the following reasons: 1. The school population has gone up in recent years. 2. The number of institutions participating has increased in recent years. 3. The Federal reimbursement per meal has come down. 4. At one time, not so long ago, it was as much as 8 to 9 cents per meal, now, I am informed, it is as low as 3 to 4 cents per meal-that is, the Federal contribution. 5. The amount appropriated has not kept consistent with the growing population of the various schools participating. 6. The various schools participating in the program received surplus food through section 32 funds of the agricultural act. 7. During the fiscal year 1958, the amount of such surplus food has decreased substantially, which has the effect of reducing the school-lunch program. It does seem to me that the facts enumerated in this letter are substantially correct, and that the same would justify an increase in the appropriation, and that the appropriation should be more than $100 million. I understand that persons connected with the schools are urging an appropriation of $130 million. With kind regards, I am Sincerely yours, APPENDIX JOHN, Majority Leader. (The following information was supplied in response to interrogation on p. 2205:) |