The CHAIRMAN. You have a detailed program and you have to break it down. Mr. Gathings wanted to leave it to local committees to determine whether or not the man was acting in good faith. Mr. GATHINGS. That is right, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. No one would approve it in the Department.

You know and I know that this committee needs help from the Department. Unless we have leadership in the Department of Agriculture we will not get anything to help anybody at any time.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I agree full cooperation is necessary from this committee, from the Department, and from the Appropriations Subcommittee.

The CHAIRMAN. We are not getting it from the Department. You belong to the Republican Party and you are in a position to talk to people in the Department.

We have cotton bills which have been opposed, and every cotton bill we have pending before this committee has been damned and turned down by the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Might I point out that I hope-and this bears upon your statement-that whatever we can do will have no regard to any specific commodities but will embrace all commodities if the need arises.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you. I happened to pick out one commodity because it was in distress. They showed thousands of acres flooded and we couldn't get the Department to give us even sympathetic consideration.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I wish you had called it to my attention earlier, Mr. Cooley.

The CHAIRMAN. We called a hearing on it.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I didn't have it called to my attention, sir. We should give an existing agency in which we have confidence the right to do a job.

The CHAIRMAN. I can understand why Mr. Benson didn't want to turn the soil bank program into a crop insurance program.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

Mr. SMITH. There is one thing that this committee and others have missed the boat on. You are going to have this in the hands of the doctor, lawyer, and candlestick maker and Congress will put this under acreage reserve and crop insurance. I don't think it was intended that Congress should take care of the doctors, lawyers, bankers, and everyone else here.

If you put it under FHA then you put it back into the hands of the farmers. I think that is a fact which should be borne in mind. Mr. ANDERSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you, Mr. Andersen. We always appreciate having you.

Mr. ANDERSEN. You are always very courteous.

Mr. POAGE. And you are always helpful to us.

We will hear now from the Department. We would like to have a statement from you now.

Mr. HAGEN. California has had a severe grasshopper invasion and our crops have been eaten up.

Mr. TEAGUE. Some 17,000 acres in my district have been affected. I don't know what effect this legislation will have on that, and I presume none at all because we are not involved in basic crops.

I have received no request from anybody in that area for any help even though many farmers have had their entire crops wiped out. Mr. POAGE. Proceed, Mr. Miller.

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE L. MILLER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. MILLER. I am Clarence Miller, Associate Administrator, Commodity Stabilization Service. With me are Mr. H. L. Manwaring, Deputy Director, Farm Production Adjustment, Commodity Stabilization Service, Mr. Dwight W. Meyer, Deputy Director, Soil Bank Division, and Mr. Howard Doggett, Director, Soil Bank Division. We will be glad to answer any questions you might have. Mr. POAGE. We have the reports of the Department and they will be made part of the record without objection.

(The reports referred to are as follows:)

Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D. C., June 25, 1957.

House of Representatives.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN COOLEY: This is in reply to your request of June 17, 1957, for a report on H. R. 8051 and H. R. 8052. H. R. 8051 is a bill to provide for an emergency acreage reserve program in areas determined to be major disaster areas. H. R. 8052 is a bill to provide increased participation in the acreage reserve program by producers of basic commodities in major disaster areas. We oppose the enactment of H. R. 8051 and H. R. 8052.

Both of these bills provide essentially for the inclusion in the acreage reserve of acreage of 1957 crops eligible under the acreage reserve program where such crops were "destroyed or seriously damaged" in the course of a major disaster as determined under Public Law 875, 81st Congress, as amended (42 U. S. C. 1855). These bills are inconsistent with the declaration of policy of the Soil Bank Act, a principal purpose of which is to encourage farmers to take sufficient cropland out of production "to prevent excessive supplies of agricultural commodities from burdening and obstructing interstate and foreign commerce." These bills would

permit the inclusion of cropland planted to 1957 crops under the acreage reserve program in such "major disaster" areas. They would not of themselves bring about reductions in acreage planted below applicable farm allotment levels as now provided by the Soil Bank Act.

The soil bank is a temporary, emergency program which can help reduce surpluses and conserve our resources. This program was not designed to carry the responsibility for flood relief, drought relief, or credit needs. There are other Government programs which can better assist farmers in these respects. The Soil Bank Act should be utilized for the purpose for which it was originally intended.

The Bureau of the Budget advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

TRUE D. MORSE, Acting Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUlture,

Washington, D. C., June 25, 1957.

Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN COOLEY: This is in reply to your request of June 12, 1957, for a report on H. R. 8031 and H. R. 8033, identically worded bills, to permit farmers in areas affected by excessive rainfall and flooded conditions to include acreage in the acreage reserve program up to July 15, 1957.

We recommend against enactment of Ĥ. R. 8031 and H. R. 8033.

These bills would not be consistent with the declaration of policy of the Soil Bank Act, a principal purpose of which is to encourage farmers to take sufficient cropland out of production "to prevent excessive supplies of agricultural commodities from burdening and obstructing interstate and foreign commerce.' These bills would permit the inclusion of cropland under the acreage reserve program "by reason of excessive rainfall and flooded conditions" but would not of themselves bring about reductions in acreages planted below applicable farmallotment levels as now provided by the act.

The soil bank is a temporary, emergency program which can help reduce surpluses and co serve our resources. This program was not designed to carry the responsibility of flood relief, drought relief, or credit needs. There are other Government programs which can better assist farmers in these respects. The Soil Bank Act should be utilized for the purposes for which it was originally intended. The Bureau of the Budget advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

TRUE D. MORSE, Acting Secretary.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, we have no prepared statement. Realizing the situation existing now in the flooded-out areas of the Mississippi Valley, the Department is opposed to the inclusion of relief under the acreage-reserve provision of the soil bank.

Last year, when the soil bank was first enacted into legislation, the Secretary of Agriculture made the statement that it was very late in the year 1956 to make the program effective for that crop year, pointing out that for all practical purposes most of the crops had been planted or many of the basics affected by the legislation were in the process of being planted at that time.

However, at the insistence of Congress and pursuant to the legislation the program was made effective in 1956.

At approximately the time the program became effective, the closing dates for applications for acreage-reserve contracts was established as the 21st day of July-the date can be verified by Mr. Doggett in a moment at the insistence of many producers throughout the United States, and subject to their pleas, we did lengthen the time of making application for acreage-reserve contracts from July 21 to July 27, based upon the plea made by many that they were unfamiliar with the terms of the contract, and that the soil-bank program announcements were made late in the season, and that they still had, if permitted, 1 week more to sign up and would have an opportunity to come in and participate in the 1956 acreage reserve.

Also, after extension to the 27th day of July, for the purpose of making application, some of the dates were extended for purposes of compliance under the soil bank acreage reserve, delays made of first 1-week and then a 2-weeks' extension whereby a person could complete compliance on contracts they had made, making the contract effective and have a base acreage program for 1956.

After those dates were announced we were under constant pressure in the Department from producers again, from those people who had suffered from vicissitudes of weather, to allow them to come in and sign a contract even after the 27th day of July deadline.

In many instances people would have liked to incorporate their crops into the acreage reserve after they had been destroyed by hail in the Southeast made their requests to the Department.

The Department felt the soil-bank program was not, and it feels today, inaugurated for the purpose of extending relief in cases of disaster and flood.

We feel we are opposed to these bills today for the same reason we were opposed to a further extension last year, and we were opposed

to a further extension last year because we foresaw that the critics of the program could successfully attack the program itself because it was operated as a flood-relief program or a drought-relief program. We feel these four pending bills do not attack the problem properly as set out a few moments ago by one of the previous witnesses.

First, the provisions of this bill apply only to the basic commodities, and many people planting commodities other than basics will continue to suffer throughout the year from the vicissitudes of the weather, certainly to the extent that the planters of the basic commodities have. We also feel an arbitrary closing date of July 15, as shown in two or more of the bills, would not be a logical solution because it is an arbitrary cutoff date.

We would be as much subjected to pressure after July 15 for those people who had suffered losses from hail and floods to permit them to come into the acreage reserve as from those people who suffered prior to July 15.

We feel to place the extra added burden of an emergency program to alleviate drought or flood on either our acreage allotment and pricesupport programs or soil-bank programs would be to use the program for something other than what the program was intended to be used for at the time of their enactment, and it would complicate the operation of the program, and it would not provide the needed relief to all the people who would require relief in its limited application. Therefore, we make a recommendation against the enactment of these four bills.

Mr. POAGE. You have the same wording in here-"there are other Government programs which can better assist farmers in these respects."

What other Government programs?

Mr. MILLER. Farmers Home.

Mr. POAGE. Do you recommend an extension of Farmers Home credit to take care of this situation?

Mr. MILLER. I am not in a position to recommend, Mr. Chairman, further extension of Farmers Home.

Mr. POAGE. The Department tells us in one breath that this is bad. You have told us that on every bill we have introduced in this committee with one possible exception. Mr. Johnson told me you once agreed to give milk to school children, but prior to that you have filed adverse reports on practically everything that has come before this committee.

You tell us this is a wrong approach. You tell us there is a better approach in this same report because you say there are other agencies that can do it better. You tell us you don't want to do it as we propose to do it, but you make no positive recommendations.

Is it the purpose of the Department never to tell us how to do anything? Is there anybody there who will tell us what we should do in the face of the disaster described to us this morning?

The CHAIRMAN. In both these letters they say there are other Government programs which can better assist farmers in these respects. What are those programs?

Mr. POAGE. That is just what I asked him. Mr. Chairman. That is the question I propounded to him. He says he is not prepared to suggest anything.

Mr. MILLER. I am not prepared to suggest any furtherance of any program. I thought you asked the question of whether I was in favor of Farmers Home Administration extension.

Mr. POAGE. You don't think Farmers Home under the present law can care for this situation, do you?

Mr. MILLER. That is the one I am not prepared to answer, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I left home yesterday and while there saw half of a man's tobacco crop plowed up. Half of it is gone. What can he do about it? He can do nothing. A loan will not help him because he cannot pay it back.

He had 4 acres of tobacco and yesterday cut down 2 acres. It is too late to replant it. He is gone. The only reason he is gone is because you outlaw these bills to help him. You resist the types of tobacco he could grow on that land. He couldn't grow those and now half of his crop is gone and he is facing a distress situation.

There is no agency of Government I know now that can help him. Last year, when hail hit a certain section of our district there and destroyed crops, you were very gracious and kind and extended the date and those people put their land under the soil bank. They were compensated and went on about their business.

I know that has an insurance aspect about it and I know you could not convert this entirely into an insurance program.

Mr. Poage and I have been trying to get provision in the law to let a man put his crop into the soil bank up to harvest time. If you did that you could compensate this poor fellow who has lost his crop. You said no. It is as Mr. Poage pointed out; I know of no bill you have had before this committee that you have approved. Can you name one?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Can you name one, any bill, we have had in this committee since you have been there where you have come up and said "We endorse this."?

Is there any big farm bill which you have approved?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, we feel as though the soil bank was enacted for the purpose of decreasing production, to bring supplies back in line with demand.

The CHAIRMAN. We wrote into the law that if the State or Federal Government in the exercise of the right of eminent domain takes a man's land away from him he can transfer his acreage to other duly acquired land.

We did that, and not with your help.

Now we come along and say: Here is a man who is flooded out and we want to transfer it for 1 year to keep him off relief. You say, "No." What is the difference, taking it permanently away from the man by right of eminent domain or by flood?

Mr. MILLER. I am not prepared to answer you.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't think anybody is prepared to answer. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, we have come here in good faith. Every member of the Oklahoma delegation has supported the soil bank. We do not think there is anything sacrosanct about the soil bank. We think where you have a natural soil bank in operation where a man has 100 acres, and that is all he has, and he cannot plant an acre of it, that he is entitled to his portion of the soil bank just as a man who has 100 acres elsewhere and can plant 80 acres of it and put 20 acres under soil bank.