the Government would pay a part of the costs of establishing such uses and would make annual payments for a period of years related to the establishment of such uses. The landowner would agree to carry out sound conservation measures on these acres and to refrain from returning them to crop production or from grazing them for a specified period. The President estimates that this program would cost some $350 million during the calendar year 1956 and a total of about a billion dollars over the next 3 years. These sums would be in addition to large payments to be made under existing programs.

In considering the tree-planting aspects of this program we believe your committee should give a serious considerations to the following questions:

(1) To what extent would the proposed program involve enlargement of the forestry aspects of the present agricultural conservation program, floodcontrol program, watershed-protection program, and other financial and technical assistance programs of the Department of Agriculture? Would the new program be separate from these existing programs and, if so, how would it be correlated? What is the extent and cost of the forestry aspects of these existing programs?

(2) What proportion of the 25 million acres and of the estimated billiondollar cost would be represented by the diversion of cropland to tree cover? On what basis would lands be classified as suitable for inclusion in the conservation reserve and on what basis would a determination be made as to the use of such lands for grass or trees?

(3) Regarding payments, what is the estimated average initial payment per acre for tree planting and for grass cover? What is the estimated average annual payment per acre for each type of use? How do these figures compare with payments under existing programs?

(4) If a large tree-planting program is contemplated, where will the tree seed and the planting stock required for such a program come from? Will the Government establish tree nurseries? In what States would the plantings be concentrated?

(5) The Forest Service has recently estimated that there are in the United States 51.9 million acres of plantable commercial forest land. From the standpoint of economy, would it not be more desirable to plant some of this acreage to trees before planting higher-priced cropland to trees?

(6) The observation has been made that the subsidized program of tree planting would tend to discourage private initiative and financing and thus adversely affect the excellent progress being made in this field by private enterprise; also, that planting stock in existing nurseries would be quickly used up and thus prevent continuation of the private enterprise program. How can the substance of these fears be guarded against?

(7) What bureau of the Department of Agriculture would be responsible for the administration of the tree-planting program? How large an expansion of its staff would be involved?

(8) Would landowners plant the trees themselves? If so, under what supervision? What would be the arrangements regarding maintenance of the plantations, replacement of seedlings that do not survive, and harvesting of the timber stand when mature? Would annual payments be made in differing amounts and for different periods depending upon the products to be grown, such as pulpwood or saw logs?

(9) How would a landowner who has diverted cropland to trees in the past at his own expense be maintained in a fair competitive position with the landowner who receives the benefits of this program?

(10) In case of future needs for increased farm production of food crops what provision will be made for converting areas planted to trees under the program back to crop production?

(11) What will be the State and local financial responsibility? Will this program tie in with any provision of the Clarke-McNary law?

(12) According to the Forest Service timber resource review report we are growing one-third more timber than we are using at the present time. There is every reason to believe that tree production will continue to rapidly increase and that an ample supply of timber will be produced, enough to meet even the Forest Service's exceedingly high "guesstimate" of requirements. Accordingly, might not this tree-planting program contribute to an oversupply of timber in the future? Is it possible that this in turn might lead to some form of demand by farmers for price supports on timber products as well as price supports on farm crops?

We believe there is more than enough forest land in the United States at the present time to grow all the timber we will ever need. In fact, our present and probable future needs could be met from one-half or two-thirds of the present acreage of forest land under intensive management. Has thought been given the inevitable discouragement to the improvement of forest practices on existing forest lands by private enterprise if additional nonforest lands are to be brought into timber production by the payment of Government subsidies?

As expressed through the policy statements of this association, the lumber industry places, and recommends, reliance upon private forestry enterprise as the best means of assuring a sound forest economy. It is opposed to subsidization in the belief that subsidies are fundamentally discriminatory, evade economic reality, create indirect Government competition, and are detrimental to the Nation's economy. The industry is firmly of the conviction that private enterprise is adequately supplying the Nation's needs for forest products and can continue to do so in the future. Past production records well support this conviction, as also does the record of accelerated forest land management.

We are not suggesting that a deaf ear be turned to the distress calls of the Nation's farmers, but we do entertain serious doubts as to the need or advisability of including tree planting as part of the soil-bank plan.

STATEMENT FILED BY HON. PRICE DANIEL, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I strongly urge that careful consideration be given to the feed grain support plan presented to you by Mr. Frank Moore and Mr. Harold LaFont, of Plainview, Tex., in behalf of Texas Panhandle and South Plains farmers.

This program would establish price supports of 90 percent of parity on the present basic crops and on all feed grains, provided that 15 percent of the tillable land on each farm is taken out of production or converted to soil-building practices. For instance, a farmer in the Great Plains area with 100 acres in cultivation might receive a cotton allotment of 25 acres and a wheat allotment of 15 acres. He could then plant 45 acres to feed grains, or to a total of 85 acres, leaving 15 acres free of any cash crop.

Farmers would receive no payment for the layout or soil-bank acreage. The percentage of land devoted to this purpose could be increased or reduced each year according to the supply of feed grains. Cross-compliance as ot wheat and cotton allotments would be in effect, but no marketing quotas or acreage allotments would be necessary on feed grains. In case of drought, hail, or floods, the farmers would be permitted to plant feed grains on land otherwise used for the basic crops. Small farms of a certain size-perhaps 20 acres or less-would receive 90 percent of parity without complying with the layout or soil-bank requirements.

This plan has several advantages: First, it would do much to reduce acreage planted to feed grains now contributing to overproduction. Secondly, the farmers would maintain their own soil-building program without direct payments for that purpose. Their compensation would come as a result of the 90 percent of parity on crops actually planted.

In addition, wheat and cotton farmers who have lost their crops due to hail or have been unable to plant because of drought, flood, or excessive rain could plant feed grains as a cash crop, thus relieving undue hardship, or as a cover crop to prevent wind erosion. The farmer who produces only feed grains would not be penalized-he could plant this crop on all but his layout or soil-bank acreage. The corn farmer would benefit by the reduction in the amount of feed produced, thereby lessening the competition for corn.

As this committee well knows, there is no greater danger to the Nation's economy than for our farm and livestock income to be going down when corporate profits and dividends continue to rise. There must be a better balance so that our farmers will receive a fair share of the national income. I recommend that the committee give special attention to the feed grain support program advocated by the Texas Panhandle and South Plains farmers.

STATEMENT FILED BY HON. WILLIAM LANGER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the privilege of appearing before the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee to offer my views regarding the farm program.

This committee is faced with a grave responsibility and, within the very near future, must provide the leadership in the Senate for establishing a farm program that will be of benefit to the farmers of this Nation.

Agriculture in the United States has served this Nation well. Through the years of World War I and World War II, the farmers supplied the food and fiber needs for a large part of the world.

American agriculture has dynamic qualities that have put our Nation among the leaders of the world. Certainly, the United States could not have achieved this position without a plentiful food supply. Historically, agriculture has been the basis of our whole expansion and growth. It has supplied the industries with raw materials and bought their products. It is the most important and the only indispensable part of our economy. There just cannot be any real prosperity without agricultural prosperity.

The farmers deserve as much credit and approbation as any other segment of our economy. Let us examine for a moment how we have spent some of our money since the war. The Government has subsidized in one way or another nearly all phases of our economy.

Air carriers, from 1944 to 1954, received approximately $700 million. Ship operators, between 1947 and 1954, received subsidies of $300 million. Foreign aid appropriations since 1950 have amounted to over $20 billion. Economic and technical assistance has amounted to almost $13 billion.

Subsidies to industry since the war have amounted to about $1,800 per family supported by industry. Compared to this, the American farmer has been subsidized by price-support programs amounting to $1,200 per family involved.

We hear complaints about a surplus in grain. If you look at the farm surplus in relation to excesses in other parts of our economy, they are not large. I have it on good authority that the average annual surplus of farm products from 1947 to 1954 has been only about 1.6 percent of annual production. During the worst year, 1954, the excess was only 4.2 percent of annual production. If you contrast this with what major industries feel is normal excess, you will find that usually 5 percent is not felt to be too much. Actually, short supply could be just as costly to the taxpayer as long supply, inasmuch as costs to consumers could double or treble under such conditions.

I cannot stress too heavily, Mr. Chairman, the importance of getting legislation passed now and not 6, 8, or 10 months from now. Why, the farmers of this Nation and I know this to be a fact in North Dakota-are faced with the reality of leaving their farms by the hundreds because of declining farm prices; because of the tremendous prices that they must pay for farm machinery; and because of the impossibility of getting credit during this period of great prosperity. The family-sized farmers of this country might just as well be hunting for the fountain of youth or weaving a rope of sand as to attempt the impossibility of getting credit during this period of farm bankruptcy. Most of the farmers I have talked with during the past months already have their farm machinery, their homes, their land, and, in many instances, even their livestock mortgaged to the hilt. That's the kind of prosperity we are told exists throughout the land. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the farmers of this Nation are not swimming with the tide. They are in a state of bankruptcy. The farmers were fortunate if they met one-half of their obligations this last fall.

I urge you, Mr. Chairman, and I urge the members of this Agriculture Committee and this Congress to act at this eleventh hour. Give the farmer the legislation he needs to make this a true period of prosperity.

As an emergency program that will be simple, immediately effective, and one that will be economical to administer, I recommend:

1. 100 percent of parity on all livestock and grains computed on today's price structure.

2. A more favorable and adequate credit coverage reorganized to give the farmer immediate help.

If these measures are not legislated within the very near future, the family-sized farmer of today will cease to exist.

These two bills, S. 2884 and S. 2885, are submitted and I ask that they be included in the record along with my remarks. They have to do with an increase in the farm marketing quotas and acreage allotments for the 1956 durum wheat

crop by amending section 334 (e) and (g) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[S. 2884, 84th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To amend the wheat marketing quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 334 (e) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U. S. C. 1334), is amended to read as follows: "(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Secretary shall increase the farm marketing quotas and acreage allotments for the 1956 crop of wheat for farms located in counties in the States of North Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, South Dakota, and California, designated by the Secretary as counties which (1) are capable of producing durum wheat (class II) and (2) have produced such wheat for commercial food products during one or more of the five years 1951 through 1955. The increase in the wheat acreage allotment for any farm shall be conditioned upon the production of durum wheat (class II) on such increased acreage. The increased allotment shall be determined by adding to the allotment established without regard to this subsection (hereinafter referred to as the 'original allotment') an acreage equal to two times the acreage by which the original allotment exceeds the 1956 acreage on the farm of classes of wheat other than durum wheat (class II) (hereinafter referred to as 'other wheat'), but such increased allotment shall not exceed the smaller of the cropland on the farm well suited to wheat or the wheat acreage on the farm: Provided, That for the purposes of this subsection (1) the original allotment for each farm shall be not less than fifteen acres, and (2) varieties of class II (durum wheat) known as 'Golden Ball' and 'Peliss' shall be regarded as 'other wheat'."

The increases in wheat acreage allotments authorized by this subsection shall be in addition to the National, State, and county wheat acreage allotments, and the acreage of durum wheat (class II) on such increased allotments shall not be considered in establishing future State, county and farm acreage allotments.

The provisions of paragraph (6) of Public Law 74, Seventy-seventh Congress (7 U. S. C. 1340 (6)), and section 326 (b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U. S. C. 1326 (b)), relating to the reduction of the storage amount of wheat shall apply to the allotment for the farm established without regard to this subsection and not to the increased allotment under this subsection.

[S. 2885, 84th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To amend the wheat marketing quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection (e) of section 334 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U. S. C. 1334 (e)), is amended, beginning with the 1956 crop of wheat, to read as follows:

"(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act the Secretary shall increase the farm marketing quotas and acreage allotments for the 1956 crop of wheat for farms located in counties in the States of Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota designated by the Secretary as counties which (1) are capable of producing class II durum wheat and (2) have produced such wheat for commercial foods products during one or more of the ten years 1946 through 1955: Provided, That the increase in the wheat acreage allotment for any farm shall not exceed the difference between the acreage of cropland on the farm suitable for the production of wheat and the wheat acreage allotment, if any, determined without regard to this subsection, and the increase in allotment shall be conditioned upon the production thereon of class II durum wheat. The increase in wheat acreage allotments authorized by this subsection shall be in addition to the National, State, and county wheat acreage allotments, and the acreage of class II durum wheat thereon shall not be considered in establishing future State, county, and farm acreage allotments."