these surpluses rather than acreage reserve so that they could feed these surpluses to their livestock, it would serve a better purpose.

Mr. MILLS. I said nothing about the need for feed. When the Department of Agriculture designates an area as a disaster area, they can make feed as well as loans available. Members of this committee know that better than I. I had not discussed the need for feed. There is some of that need, and it is being taken care of, as I understand, in the areas where the need exists at the moment.

Mr. HARRISON. I was just trying to think of another method we might use other than this soil-bank procedure for the reason that I think we were criticized quite severely last year because the soil bank was used in some instances as a relief program.

Mr. MILLS. It should not be. Frankly, I have suggested on numerous occasions that we could amend the soil bank in some respects, I think, to make it far more acceptable than it is now. I am sure the members of this committee would not go along with me altogether on the thoughts I have had with respect to these amendments, but I do not see anything wrong with using existing machinery to take care of an emergency situation if you can do it that way at a lesser cost to the Government finally than to do it under some straight-out emergency dole or grant or any other procedure you might want to follow that would cost more.

The soil bank can, I think, be properly used to take care of emergency situations where some cash has to be given to a farmer. I do not see anything wrong with it or I would never have suggested the idea.

Mr. HARRISON. Last year I think the relief program was a godsend to those particular communities.

Mr. MILLS. I agree. That was the reason we fell upon the idea this time.

Mr. HAGEN. The vice of this disaster declaration is that these areas stop at county lines. A farmer might have a personal disaster but might not be in the county declared to be a disaster area. Mr. MILLS. There is a difference in the bill. If you read the bill Mr. Gathings and I introduced, we are not taking this thing to Washington for determination. We are leaving it on a local level.

We are saying that the reserve acreage of the 1957 crop of a commodity under the acreage-reserve program authorized by the Soil Bank Act may include acreage in areas determined by the local county committee to be eligible for participation in such programs by reason of excessive rainfall and flooded conditions.

We are leaving it to the county committee. It might well not even apply across an entire county. It might apply to a part of a county, if the county committee so decided. I wanted to do it this way because I have always thought it is better for us to leave these decisions pretty close to the grassroots if we can where the conditions exist and with people who are responsible for the discharge of some program in connection with agricultural legislation. Certainly, the county committee is in that position.

Mr. ALBERT. I think that is an improvement over the bill I introduced. I would like to go along with it.

Mr. MILLS. I am honored to have my colleague agree with me. Mr. MATTHEWs. I would like to emphasize what Mr. Albert said. That particular part of it is intriguing to me because in my district in Florida we did not have the constant rainfall but we have had about

25 percent of our tobacco crop ruined by excessive rainfall. I think the gentleman has given us a very fine statement.

Mr. MILLS. Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much for your appearance before this committee.

He

Our colleague, Mr. Jones of Missouri, has the same problem. wanted to make a statement on it. But he asked me to explain that he was called to another meeting, and he wanted it noted that he had been present, was deeply interested in this same problem.

Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is best that I talk in executive session. Since Mr. Mills, of my State, had a companion bill, I thought it best to hear him so he could leave early.

Mr. POAGE. Your colleague did a good job.

Are there other bills by members of the committee to come before us? If not, we have bills from each of the members of the Oklahoma delegation which, I understand, are identical with the Albert bill. We have several members of the Oklahoma delegation with us, whom we will be delighted to hear. In the order in which I have them I see Mr. Edmondson is first. I see he is with us. We will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Edmondson.

STATEMENT OF HON. ED EDMONDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will take only a minute or two of your time. I think the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman from Arkansas have covered this situation admirably.

I would like to emphasize that this is an emergency and a disaster almost without parallel in our State. I think that our Subcommittee on Public Works which went down and surveyed this situation concluded that this was 1 of the 6 most destructive floods in the United States since 1900. So, this is one of the major disasters of our country.

You are not dealing with just a small, local situation. The farmers of that area are absolutely in a situation where they have nowhere to turn. I think there is a possibility this water will recede and some of this land may be planted, a little of it, but that is going to involve new credit. Most of these men have strained their credit to the absolute breaking point and have nowhere to go for additional credit except to the disaster agencies of the Government.

From the Government's standpoint, I think it would be better business to let them put this land in a soil bank or emergency acreage reserve rather than further extending their credit in an effort to produce crops at this late time in the year. I earnestly hope this committee will act favorably upon either the bill of the gentleman from Oklahoma or the bill of the gentleman from Arkansas, which would meet the situation also, I am sure.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any questions?

Mr. SMITH. What is the result in the Washita watershed of the great effort we made to take care of erosion?

Mr. EDMONDSON. It is my understanding that the Washita project has functioned very well, to the extent that they have completed the project. I think they estimated that 71 percent of the flood damage

that occurred in that basin could have been avoided if the project had been completed in that area. They had not completed all of the projects through that area.

Mr. SMITH. Where it has been completed, it has solved the problem? Mr. EDMONDSON. Where it had been completed, I would say, it was pretty close to 90 percent effective. The volume of rainfall was such that there was no manmade device of any kind that would have prevented all damage. I am certain of that. There has been a great deal of flood damage in that area, not from overflowing streams and rivers and creeks, but just from a volume of rainfall that made it impossible for the earth to absorb it. It was just too much rain for the earth to accommodate.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. Is it not true that in your area, as I know it is true a little farther south, much of the problem results from the fact that it has rained 2 or 3 times a week ever since sometime in March, and that even those days when you do not have any rain it is utterly impossible to go into your fields and plow your land or plant your crops, and that the fact that we have not been able to put these crops in, much less till them after they have been planted, has prevented our farmers. from having a prospect of any crop at all, because it is now too late to plant most of those crops?

Mr. EDMONDSON. That is exactly correct. Mr. Chairman, I think the average rainfall in my district to this point is 37 inches. The average rainfall is just about 30 inches in that area. We have had about 7 inches more rain already this year in my district than we normally get in a year's time. That is the problem.

Mr. POAGE. May I point out another thing that I think many of the members of the committee will probably fail to understand. That is that our soils in the Southwest, or at least a large part of them, are very tight, sticky soils. You cannot get into black land soil for a number of days after it has rained on it, whereas you might go in on a perfectly sandy soil and bring your equipment in rather shortly after a rain. Any moisture keeps us out of the fields much longer than it keeps farmers out of the fields who have a different type of soil. Mr. EDMONDSON. That is certainly true in a good part of the area I represent. Could I add one fact? The Eastern Oklahoma Agricultural Council, the Farmers Union of Wagoner County, Muskogee County, and Haskell County, and a large number of farmers and farm groups in Sequoyah County and McIntosh County have all joined in urging that this acreage-reserve program be adopted. I wanted to make that a matter of record at this time.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you. We appreciate your statement.

I believe the next bill we have was introduced by Mr. Jarman. Mr. Jarman was here and left for another committee, as I believe Mr. Albert pointed out, having to do with the natural gas bill hearings. (Statement submitted to the committee by Congressman Jarman follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN JARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. Chairman, my State of Oklahoma and other Southwestern States are now suffering from the tremendously damaging effects of a flood disaster as great as any in recent history. In Oklahoma, the flood damage to roads and bridges

94911-57--4

alone was so devastating that it was necessary for the State Legislature to levy a one-cent tax on gasoline to partially pay for the destruction.

Damage just as far reaching and destructive was done to the lands and crops of farmers, many of whom were just recovering from the effects of a 5-year drought. These farmers are now in dire and immediate need. Not only were existing crops wiped out but the wet condition of the soil has prevented entry upon the land to work it in time to plant new crops this year. Much of our fertile lowland soil was nearly completely runed by silt. It will require large expenditures to rework this soil, expenditures that drought stricken farmers cannot make. It is because of the plight of these farmers, many of whom have gone 5 years or more without a crop, that I testify before this great committee in behalf of this bill. Under this legislation, any acreage of a basic commodity destroyed or seriously damaged in a disaster area would be eligible for cash payments, corresponding to payments under the soil-bank program for this year only. The legislation would leave it to the President to determine the disaster area.

Any producer of a commodity in a disaster area could participate in the emergency program to the extent his acreage was reduced below his allotment because of heavy rains and floods.

This is legislation which is absolutely and vitally necessary as the means of providing adequate relief which is not available under any present program to stricken farmers. In closing, I wish to plead for your sympathetic and earnest consideration of this legislation which may well represent a last-ditch stand to many Southwestern farmers.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOBY MORRIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. POAGE. The next bill is by Mr. Morris.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my remarks will be brief as they should be. But I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the committee to revise and extend my remarks in the record.

Mr. POAGE. Without objection, that will be done.

Mr. MORRIS. The gentlemen who have preceded me have made such excellent statements in regard to these bills that I shall not belabor you with further statements as to their contents other than these very brief statements which I think pinpoint the legislation that we are requesting.

The bill that I introduced, H. R. 8069, provides in substance that any producer of a basic commodity in a disaster area could participate in the emergency program to the extent his acreage was reduced below his allotment because of heavy rains and floods. The basic commodities are cotton, corn, wheat, peanuts, rice, and tobacco, as this great committee so well knows.

The other bill, H. R. 8070, provides in substance that any acreage of a basic commodity destroyed or seriously damaged in a disaster area would be eligible for a cash payment corresponding to payments under the soil-bank program for this year only. The legislation would leave it to the President to determine the disaster area.

In substance, those are the contents of the two bills I have introduced. All of the Oklahoma delegation, as I recall it, introduced the same bill or similar bills. I have no pride of authorship and would not even expect that my particular bills would be reported out. I would expect, of course, the bills of my colleague, Congressman Albert, who is a member of this great committee, or my colleague Mr. Gathings of Arkansas, or some other bills of some other member of the committee would be reported, but I am, of course, deeply concerned about this subject matter. I do respectfully request your serious and earnest consideration.

I would like to make just 1 or 2 points and will be very brief. These points, I believe, have not been made up to this point, at least have not been emphasized.

It is true that our rivers out in Oklahoma have gone on rampages by reasons of floods. But, gentlemen of the committee, not only have the lowlands been flooded and the crops thereon destroyed, but the crops on the uplands all over the great district that I represent, consisting of 23 counties in western Oklahoma, that is a great wheat area and we raise a lot of cotton, and we had a bumper crop-in fact, I think it was the best crop in the history of our great State, it was absolutely made until the floods came along and completely destroyed and in many instances cut the yield down from what would be a bumper yield down to a negligible yield. It has been reported to me that in many instances farmers had not only reasonable but an absolute prospect until the floods came of making some 30 and 40 bushels of wheat to the acre and now will make 4 or 5 bushels to the acre or none at all.

May I call this to your attention. We have been hit with a doublebarreled situation in my area and all over Oklahoma, particularly in the western part. We suffered devastating droughts that impoverished our farmers. Now when we had a bumper crop almost ready to harvest, the floods destroyed it. We are in a dire condition out there, gentlemen of this great committee.

Now I conclude with this thought. I realize that this would be a subsidy, but I would like to put some figures and facts in the record at this point. Perhaps every member of this committee is familiar with those figures and facts, but I want it to go down in the record. This information is supplied by the Farmers Union in our State. The source of their information, according to this statement, is the Congressional Record of January 12, 1956, page 403. It is very short, but I want to put it in the record.

In speaking of subsidies, according to this statement, I believe this would be true. I will check further to be sure it is absolutely accurate. I try never to, and I believe I never do use figures of any kind, anywhere, on any occasion, unless I know them to be true or verily believe them to be true. If there is any question at all about the authenticity or accuracy of them, I always call the attention of those with whom I might be discussing the matter to the fact that there might be some question about them.

However, according to this statement, Government losses because of manufacturers' subsidies from 1933 to 1955 are $40.8 billion, Government losses to shipping and airline subsidies from 1933 to 1955, the same period, are $5 billion. Government losses for farm pricesupport programs from 1933 to 1955 are $1.2 billion.

When total subsidies to all groups are considered over the past 50 years, only $5 out of every $1,000 has gone to the farmer.

I think that we in the great agricultural sections of our country have been too timid in calling attention to those facts. I do not oppose the manufacturers' subsidy, the shipping subsidy, the air-line subsidy. I think they are justified. Maybe there should be some revision of all of them, I do not know, but I think they are at least reasonably justified. But most certainly, gentlemen of this great committee, if these figures are accurate and I verily believe them to be since the farming subsidy has cost us only $5 out of every $1,000