(The bill referred to above is as follows:) [S. 2871, 84th Cong., 2d sess.] A BILL To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to establish policies and programs for the use of acreage voluntarily retired from production Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of Agriculture shall provide, through agreements with producers and by other voluntary methods, for retiring lands from production of any crop sold in normal channels of trade or used in the production of any product sold in normal channels of trade, and for the use of such lands for soil building, development of forest resources, promotion of wildlife refuges, and soil- and water-conserving purposes. Practices to be used in achieving such purposes are to be determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, taking into consideration practice with respect to soil building, development of forest resources, promotion of wildlife refuges, and soil and water conservation normally used in each farming area of the country. Such acreage shall also be eligible for payments under any soil-conservation program now in effect or to be put into effect by the Congress. In carrying out the purposes of this section due regard shall be given to the maintenance of a continuous and stable supply of agricultural commodities adequate to meet consumer demand at prices fair to both producers and consumers. SEC. 2. Rental or benefit payments in connection with such agreements or other methods shall be not less than the value at the support price of 25 per centum of the quantity of the commodity which would have been produced on the lands retired from production under this program. Payment shall be made as far as practicable on contiguous tracts in order to encourage soilbuilding, development of forest resources, promotion of wildlife refuges, and soil- and water-conserving practices on lands so retired from production. SEC. 3. No payment shall be made to any cooperator in such program for more than $2,500 for any year. Mr. CALLISON. The same language occurs, I think, in about three places. Many of these reserved areas would be rather small, and in the technology of wildlife management, it isn't practical to manage refuges in small, scattered areas, but many very excellent wildlife practices, practices that would produce more wildlife, can be put in on those small areas. So I would suggest the changing of the wording in Senator Thye's bill, and I will get in touch with him with this suggestion that it be changed to "wildlife conservation" or "wildlife management." The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. CALLISON. In case the legislation that comes out of this committee and the Congress proposes the administration of the soil-bank areas under the present Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, we have suggested some very brief and simple amendments to the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act that would include this authorization. It reads as follows: Promotion of the economic use and the conservation of land, water, and related resources, including wildlife. There is similar language in section 2 (a), and I should like to leave copies of that with the committee. That is one document I have several copies of today. The CHAIRMAN. These will be written into the record. (The document referred to is as follows:) PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SOIL CONSERVATION AND DOMESTIC ALLOTMENT ACT That section 7 (a) (2) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. as amended, is amended to read as follows: “(2) promotion of the economic use and conservation of land, water, and related resources, including wildlife;". SEC. 2 (a) The second sentence of section 8 (b) of such Act is amended to read as follows: "Clauses (1) and (2) above shall be construed to cover water conservation and the beneficial use of water on individual farms, including measures to prevent runoff and to conserve wildlife, the building of check dams and ponds, and providing facilities for applying water to the land." Mr. CALLISON. And with your permission, Senator Ellender, I have here a letter from Mr. Herschel D. Newsom, master of the National Grange, in which he comments upon our suggested amendments to the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, and expresses his approval of the idea of broadening the concept of the program to include wildlife resources. I have his permission to offer it for the record, if you will grant that permission. The CHAIRMAN. How long is it? Mr. CALLISON. It is short. The CHAIRMAN. It will placed in the record at this point, in connection with your testimony. (The document referred to follows:) Mr. CHARLES H. CALLISON, THE NATIONAL GRANGE, Washington, D. C., January 10, 1956. Conservation Director, National Wildlife Federation, Takoma Park, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CALLISON: We have reviewed with interest the amendments proposed by the National Wildlife Federation to the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. The revised language you propose to the policy statement in section 7 (a) (2) would, in our opinion, constitute an improvement by providing appropriate recognition of the value of water and wildlife in our economy. We likewise believe your proposed revision of the second sentence of section 8 (b) would be an improvement, in that it would remove the unfortunately restrictive clause, "In arid or semiarid section," at the beginning of the sentence; and also give appropriate recognition to the need for wildlife conservation. Certainly the need for water conservation and water-conservation measures is now widely recognized as a matter of nationwide concern, and not one restricted to arid and semiarid sections. In our opinion, it is entirely appropriate to recognize, too, that one of the important beneficial purposes to be served by water-conservation action is wildlife conservation. While we are of the opinion that the additional amendment you propose for section 8 (b) is designed to achieve the desirable objective of additional consideration of wildlife in connection with the agicultural conservation program, we feel the consultations you seek to provide by law may not be altogether practical. Presumably, such consultations with State wildlife conservation agencies and with Department of the Interior representatives might well be held without the legal requirement. We hope you will keep us informed of the progress of you proposals. HERSCHEL D. NEW SOM, Master. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Is there anything else? Mr. CALLISON. I have one other letter which I should like to offer the committee for inclusion in the record, if you see fit, Mr. Chairman. I think it is typical of the interest being generated by conservation leaders and sportsmen's organization leaders across this country. This letter was written-I received it only yesterday--by Chester Davis, who is a past officer of the North Carolina Wildlife Federation and a staff writer for the Winston-Salem Journal, of WinstonSalem, N. C. This is a voluntary expression of interest in the soil-bank proposal and its potentialities as far as wildlife conservation is concerned. The CHAIRMAN. The letter will be placed in the record at this point. 64440-56-pt. 8—22 (The letter referred to is as follows:) PIEDMONT PUBLISHING CO., Mr. CHARLES H. CALLISON, Conservation Director, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D. C. DEAR CHARLIE: First let me pass on my belated thanks to you for suggesting me for membership in the CWAA. I have thoroughly enjoyed my membership in the association. But my purpose in writing is to raise a question which, while new to me, probably is old hat to you. I am curious as to just what the various conservation groups have in mind to take advantage of the prospective soil-bank legislation. It seems to me that this legislation offers us a real opportunity to put hunting on an effective pay-asyou-go basis. As I understand it, the proposed legislation would offer an incentive payment to get land out of the production of certain overproduced crops. The retired land, while placed in soil-saving and soil-building crops, would not be used for agricultural production. That is, a farmer could not retire land from, say, tobacco and then turn it into pasture on which to graze dairy or beef cattle. Except for the incentive payment and, of course, the indirect benefits of soil improvement this land would not produce dollars for the farmer. Why can't that land be used to produce small game as a cash crop? The best habitat plantings would qualify as soil builders. With large-sized acreages being retired from production we would, for the first time, be in a position to obtain large-scale habitat restoration for small game. Here in North Carolina we have many organized rural communities. These communities plan and carry out a multitude of community improvement projects. And their problem always is a shortage of money to finance the new community house, or the new fire engine, or the like. It seems to me that we should be able to interest these communities in pooling their land-and it would run into large-sized tracts-and opening that land to fee shooting. The farmers, planting their soil-bank land under supervision of the wildlife resources commission, could charge a basic fee-say, $1 or so a gunfor the right to shoot on the land and then an overriding fee of so much for every quail or rabbit the hunters take. Charlie, that idea may be as full of holes as a swiss cheese. But it appeals to me. Somewhere in this soil-bank plan there is an opportunity to do something more than merely benefit from results that will come from land put in soil-conserving crops. If we are going to preserve public shooting in areas as populated as the Carolina-Piedmont it's going to be done, I believe, on some basis where the farmer is paid for the game he raises. And the public shooting grounds-with their fees of $20 and $25 a day-won't do the job for the average sportsman. I'm curious as to just what response this soil-bank plan has stirred up among the sportsmen. Very likely someone has come up with an idea that is more practical than this one. If so, I'd certainly appreciate hearing of it. Forgive the long letter. I'm writing a column along the line of this letter. I'd like to follow it up with something more, hence this plan for ammunition. Best regards. Mr. CALLISON. That is all I have. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Any questions? CHESTER DAVIS. Senator AIKEN. I would like to ask Mr. Callison if he thinks the wording proposed by the Secretary cover the purpose you are referring to, and it reads this way: To establish and maintain for the contract period that is up to 10 years— protective vegetative cover (including but not limited to grass and trees) or water-storage facilities on a specifically designated acreage of cultivated cropland in the farm. Mr. CALLISON. That gets very close to it. Senator AIKEN. It seems to me that could include berry shrubs. Mr. CALLISON. It would cover the field of plantings for wildlife. But for some of the other practices that I referred to, such as the restoration to natural marsh, I think if we could somehow write in "wildlife resources" or "wildlife practices," then there would be no question in the mind of the State and local committees as to whether or not these practices are permitted. Senator AIKEN. Yes; or if the committee decided to put something like that in the bill, it could be put in the committee report that it was intended to cover that but it would probably be better to have it written right into the bill, because in some cases we bring in too much grainland which should not have been grain, and we could have done better if we had not done it. The CHAIRMAN. Your proposal, of course, applied to land that has been cultivated? Mr. CALLISON. Yes; either cultivated, or I suppose it is possible that some of this land may have been grazing land that is retired from production. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but land that has been in use for some agricultural purpose? Mr. CALLISON. Yes; that is right. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you. (Mr. Callison subsequently filed the following letters for the record: Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, WASHINGTON, D. C., January 25, 1956. Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: You will recall that when I testified before your committee January 19 I suggested some brief amendments to broaden the proposed soil-bank program to include desirable wildlife conservation practices, should a farmer be interested in that phase. My comments were directed specifically to Senator Thye's S. 2871, and to certain bills that had been introduced in the House. I had not at the time seen a copy of S. 2949, introduced by Senators Aiken, Young, Thye, and others. Now, with specific reference to S. 2949, the purpose could be accomplished by the following brief and simple amendments: Page 2, line 22, insert the words "and wildlife" after the word "forest" and before the word "resources," making that sentence, beginning on line 19, read as follows: "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress and the purposes of this act to protect and increase farm income to protect the national soil, water, forest, and wildlife resources from waste and depletion, etc." On page 3, line 9, make a similar change, making this line read as follows: "water, forest, and wildlife conservation. The activities authorized". Under subtitle B, section 109 (a) (1), line 1, top of page 8, make an insertion as follows: "grass and trees or water storage facilities, including restoration of natural water areas, on a specifically.” (This amendment would authorize or permit the restoration of natural marshes or potholes such as have been drained in large numbers in the Dakotas and Minnesota. Restoration of such natural water areas would have water conservation benefits by adding to underground water tables. At the same time it would increase nesting habitat for wild waterfowl and permit the farmer to engage in muskrat fur cropping.) Also on page 8, lines 8 and 9, amend subsection (3) to read as follows: "(3) Not to harvest any crop from the acreage established in protective vegetative cover, excepting timber and wildlife or natural products thereof." (This amendment would permit a farmer to reap some cash income from cropping muskrats and other fur animals, reaping nut crops, berries, etc., which may be produced on his acreage reserve. A timber crop planted on such acreage may need to be thinned after 4 or 5 years; this amendment would permit the farmer to market Christmas trees that may be harvested as a result of such thinning.) We believe the foregoing amendments would increase the overall conservation benefits of the soil-bank program and would add to the general public support for the legislation. Thank you for your courtesy and consideration of these recommendations. CHARLES H. CALLISON, Conservation Director, National Wildlife Federation. WASHINGTON, D. C., January 18, 1956. Mr. CHARLES H. CALLISON, Conservation Director, National Wildlife Federation, Takoma Park, Washington 12, D. C. DEAR MR. CALLISON: I have read the proposed bill which would include in the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act provisions regarding water and wildlife conservation. Such amendments certainly would strengthen the economic use and conservation of our precious natural resources. These measures are in complete agreement with the policies of National Farmers Union, and I would like very much to see them enacted into legislation. Sincerely yours, JAMES G. PATTON, President, National Farmers Union. The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to say anything, Mr. Penfold? Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, I would, sir. I will just be quite brief. The purpose of my coming this afternoon is to express the Izaak Walton League's deep interest in this soil-bank idea. We have been interested in it for quite sometime. As a matter of fact, our original committee started in Illinois something more than 3 years ago working on a soil-bank plan. At our national convention 2 years ago, it was a major subject of discussion, and at which we had representatives from most of the major farm organizations to consider it with us. At our last national convention, last spring, the membership, through their delegates, adopted some general principles of the soil-bank plan. At the last meeting of our national executive board, which is our governing body between conventions, just this past weekend, our national committee on the subject reported some further changes, amendments, and thoughts were added, subtracted, and so on, and that committee now is in the process of writing our idea into brief language such as might be considered in a bill. I do not want to take the time to repeat what Mr. Callison has already said about the fish and wildlife and related aspects, beneficial aspects, of a soil-bank plan, but certainly they are there. We have not in our several years of developing the idea and discussing it with farm people and others all over the country-we have not stressed the wildlife aspects for a couple of reasons: One of them, because we think the soil-bank plan is a very important and worthwhile program aside from wildlife angles; and also, if we were to come out, the Izaak Walton League, to come out stressing wildlife, they would immediately assume that our interest was strictly wildlife, which is not the case. |