ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Mr. WHITTEN. How much do you plan to spend for administration? Mr. HUNT. Our tentative thinking is that a maximum of about $2,500,000 would be required for administration. The bulk of that would be at the county ASC committee level.

Mr. WHITTEN. Do you not think 10 percent is a little high in view of the fact that your people are already working on related programs? Mr. HUNT. If all of that $2,500,000 is not actually needed, it will not be used for administrative expenses.

With a widespread use of this program we did anticipate some more administrative costs would be needed than would normally be used in ACP practices because of the spot checks that have been mentioned earlier. A larger percentage of the farms will be spot-checked, and possibly other visits to the ranch will be required.

PROPOSED TRANSFER FROM SOIL-BANK FUNDS

Mr. WHITTEN. Why are you transferring this from the soil-bank money? For the current year the funds for the soil bank come from the Commodity Credit Corporation by borrowing from it. Why do you approach this by getting your head under that tent?

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Chairman, the decision to request that this program be financed from the soil-bank account for 1957 was made back in February when we initially submitted an estimate for a similar program under the ACP authorities. As you know, the estimate has now been converted to which one would implement the new law. That was a part of the general pattern in the submission of supplementals, to finance them in all cases where possible with existing funds. At that same time, it had been determined in connection with the revised budget estimate on that soil bank that soil-bank expenditures this year, 1957, would be very considerably less than the amount shown in the President's budget. In order to avoid asking for additional appropriated funds, this source is recommended as a means of financing this temporary program.

Mr. WHITTEN. This temporary program in actuality will come at the expense of reducing the borrowing authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation, in that the money will be withdrawn from it. That condition will continue until such time as the Budget sends down a request that we restore the capital repairment in the Commodity Credit Corporation; is that not true?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes. The use of this $25 million from the soil bank account will utilize that much of the Commodity Credit Corporation's borrowing power. I think the basis for doing it, though, is the fact that looking at the soil bank and this together, the Commodity Credit Corporation funds tied up instead of being $1,228,000,000 as shown originally in the President's budget, will be only about $475 million, considerably less than was projected. Presumably an estimate will be submitted in 1959 to repay the Commodity Credit Corporation for the advances to both of these programs in the current fiscal year.

Mr. WHITTEN. If that is not done could we write you in Rome and get your help to get it sent down?

Mr. WHEELER. I am on record in regard to that matter before I leave.

Mr. WHITTEN. I know this acreage reserve program is handled by a different group. But it is so intermeshed with this program that I think I should say this: Since all the discussion on the floor about the acreage reserve section, I have had information given me that in certain areas of the country the Department allocated funds to given sections. Then from that section they allocated funds to the counties. Then if the farmer would not rent his acreage to the Government at the set rate which was tied into its production, they just kept raising the offer until they got rid of the money.

Now, that is a rather serious thing. That has come to me directly. I just hope that whatever rate is determined here is an honest rate and will not be a case of trying to get rid of the money. I have always supported agricultural conservation programs, and yet from time to time I learn of the same type of thing where nobody will do the sound conservation measures so they put in some poor practices that are easier to get people to do so they can use up the money. I cite that as a warning because I think such things must be watched closely.

If you inflame the sense of right or wrong of the American people in handling these things there is nothing that will do more to destroy them. The acreage reserve program, so far as I know, was handled within the law, but it was not within the sense of responsibility that the American people felt should be exercised-in my judgment. Certainly my mail reflects that kind of feeling.

Mr. VURSELL. May I ask a question partially for information? Is it not a fact that in the acreage reserve, as well as in the conservation reserve, we must depend upon the county committee organizations known as ASC, that the Department of Agriculture must depend upon their following the intent and purpose of the law? I am quite sure that there have been many shortcuts in acreage reserve and conservation reserves under the soil bank that have developed through favoritism probably, and perhaps going further than that on the part of local organizations, which would be repugnant to the members of this committee, and to the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Benson, to Mr. Doggett, and those attempting to make a fair allocation. I am not surprised at that.

Take any law we pass in America, there are a certain minority of people that will seek to take advantage of that law. While we condemn that practice with reference to the soil bank we have a great many instances where we could condemn such a practice such as in social security, in the veterans taking shortcuts on legislation, and in unemployment insurance and many other instances.

There is no wonder there is a demand for this legislation here today from the local level. I am wondering if there naturally will not be a certain minimum evasion of the intent of the law in this bill that we are now considering. I have been led to understand over in England and up in Canada the people have great respect for the law and for law enforcement. Law enforcement is a pretty stern thing in those countries, but we move so fast here in the United Stateswhether it is violating the trucking laws, the railroad laws, running a red light, and so forth, it is a part of our business in this country apparently with a minority of the people not to have quite the proper respect for the law. For that reason I think that we should not become too alarmed.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to make that rather long statement.

Mr. WHITTEN. When Congress passes any law so lax that it almost provides for throwing money around, it is easy for the individual to say, "Well, everybody else is getting it, so I might as well get my share." It is conducive to that kind of an attitude. This is one of the examples where there is very little in the law that helps to keep it on a proper basis.

I would like to know how many you people contemplate employing as a result of this program that we have been discussing?

Mr. HUNT. These are, of course, very tentative estimates in building up the $2,500,000 figure that we mentioned earlier. All of these man-years, of course, will not be new people because much of this work will be done by the people we already have, so in estimating the cost of the program and having related it to the man-years of work, at the county level we have estimated about 347 man-years; and at the State level or the section 392 account, about 19 man-years.

Mr. HORAN. In arriving at those figures which seem to be rather definite, were they based upon a count of the counties involved in these States?

Mr. HUNT. Yes; that there could be approximately 300 counties involved in this program, or approximately 1.1 man-years per county. There is one other small item in the Agricultural Conservation Program Service. We have estimated 5 man-years of work, making a total of about 371 man-years.

Mr. WHITTEN. Could we have in the record at this point a history of the States and counties which have already been designated as areas for this purpose?

Mr. D'EWART. If you will give us to Friday, we can give you a more complete list.

(The information requested is as follows:)

The United States Department of Agriculture has announced that 232 counties or parts of counties in 6 States have been designated for the emergency deferred Grazing program. Contracting for participation in the program will proceed if and when funds are appropriated.

The emergency deferred grazing program became law April 25, 1957, and specifies that designations be made within 30 days of enactment.

Designations include:

Arizona (8).-Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Mohave, Navajo, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai.

Colorado (29).—Adams, Alamosa, Arapahoe, Baca, Bent, Cheyenne, Crowley, Boulder, Custer, Douglas, El Paso, Fremont, Huerfano, Jefferson, Elbert, Kiowa, Kit Carson, Larimer, Las Animas, Lincoln, Morgan, Pueblo, Otero, Park, Prowers, Teller, nonirrigated area of Washington, Weld, and Yuma.

Kansas (34)-Barber, Cheyenne, Clark, Comanche, Decatur, Ford, Gove, Trego, Wallace, Graham, Grant, Gray, Greeley, Hamilton, Haskell, Hodgeman, Thomas, Wichita, Kearny, Kiowa, Lane, Logan, Meade, Morton, Ness, Stevens, Finney, Rawlins, Scott, Seward, Sheridan, Sherman, Stanton, and Norton.

New Mexico (23).-Bernalillo, Catron, Chaves, Colfax, Curry, De Baca, Eddy, Guadalupe, Harding, Hidalgo, Lea, Lincoln, Mora, Otero, Quay, Roosevelt, San Miguel, Sante Fe, Sierra, Socorro, Torrance, Union, and Valencia.

Oklahoma (13).-Beaver, Beckham, Cimarron, Custer, Dewey, Ellis, Harmon, Harper, Major, Roger Mills, Texas, Woods, and Woodward.

Texas (125).—Bee, Bexar, Blanco, Brooks, Burnet, Callahan, Childress, Collingsworth, Comal, Comanche, Cottle, Eastland, Fisher, Hemphill, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kenedy, King, Kleberg, Lampasas, Lipscomb, Live Oak, Mills, Starr, Stonewall, Taylor, Wheeler, Wilson, and all counties west with the exception of Hale, Hockley, Lubbock, and El Paso.

PENDING SUPPLEMENTALS FOR OTHER PROGRAMS

Mr. WHITTEN. For the emergency conservation measures, page 3 of th Senate bill, $15 million is provided. That figure is one that was agreed on some weeks ago tentatively. However, now that we are very close to the 1st of July, I wonder what change in the picture there might be with regard to the need for the $15 million.

I would like the same information with regard to the disaster loan revolving fund, showing how much of this money, if made available, will actually be used by the 1st of July, the beginning of the next fiscal year, and how much will be needed for the 6 months following. We need to know whether this money can be reduced substantially or whether there is a need to provide that it can be continued available to a later date.

EMERGENCY CONSERVATION MEASURES

Mr. WHEELER. Your questions are very appropriate. There has been a considerable lapse of time since the estimates were first submitted.

Turning to the emergency conservation measures, you will recall the original estimate was for $25 million which would include the $14 million in emergency tillage practices through June 30, 1957, and about $3 million for other wind erosion control emergency measures during the summer of 1957. Obviously, those are not needed.

To be specific as to the amount we think now would be needed before June 30, 1957, which is the termination point of the language as it is carried in the Senate bill, we would need $1,041,806 for repayment to the President's disaster relief fund for funds that have been advanced by that fund.

Then there are three other possibilities that might be put into effect and accomplished in whole or in part prior to June 30 that the Department has under consideration if and when this appropriation item passes. Those are in connection with the freeze-damaged orchards in Umatilla County in Oregon, which might run approximately $200,000, and then there are flood damages to farmlands in Oregon and Kentucky which are consistent with the type of assistance in flood-damage restoration that has previously been given under this program.

The preliminary estimate for what it might take in the Oregon flood situation is $562,448, and in Kentucky, $358,000, which comes to a total of $2,162,254, which I think would be the outside figure that would, or could, be used between now and the end of June, assuming that policy determinations were made to enter into these programs in Oregon and Kentucky.

Now, I think that would certainly be ample if the language is to remain as it is "available only until June 30 of 1957." I think that there would be considerable advantage in considering, as the original budget estimate requested, that funds be made available until June 30, 1958.

The original action of this subcommittee in cutting it back to $15 million of course was based on the idea of taking a later look at what might be necessary after June 30. I doubt if we will know much more than we do now a month or 6 weeks from now because the potential use of this money after June 30 would almost entirely depend upon disasters which may occur but which have not yet occurred. Exceptions to that are the fact that there may be some need for assistance in flood work in Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas, but no estimate has been made. Those are far from a policy determination as to whether funds would be used even if available.

The other big question mark, of course, is whether or not emergency tillage would be needed next fall and spring. If there should be a reversal in the present favorable weather conditions possibly in some of the area there would be such a need. We just do not know. If the funds were made available to June 30, 1958, then presumably a little less than $13 million of it, or whatever amount above $2,162,000 was provided, would be available during the fall and January and February, during the period when it is not possible to get additional consideration by Congress for meeting emergency needs should they arise. Mr. WHITTEN. That is always true. But knowing you have the money invites requests. We do have the President's emergency fund which the Department in times has borrowed from, and in this bill we would be restoring it. The fact that Congress would not be in session would not prevent you from meeting emergencies in some degree.

Mr. WHEELER. That is correct. The President's fund could be used.

DISASTER LOAN REVOLVING FUND

Mr. WHITTEN. How about the disaster loan revolving fund? Mr. WHEELER. On the disaster loan revolving fund, the item involves an increase in a limitation, and is not limited by fiscal years. Again focusing on the amount immediately needed the picture is this: the total of $8 million would be needed to repay the President's emergency fund. About $620,000 additional would be needed to wind up the administrative expenses of the hay program and the emergency feed program.

I have a tabulation that you might be interested in having in the record which shows briefly the use of the $50 million limitation that is now available and the total cost of the hay program since June 30. Mr. WHITTEN. It will be inserted in the record at this point.