Secretary BENSON. As I say, we would have to look very carefully at the price distortions that prevailed then.

Senator YOUNG. I firmly believe and all the facts and figures prove that using this moving average base of the previous 10 years definitely tends to pull down the parity price of all agricultural commodities. I think there is a great principle involved here.

Secretary BENSON. Haven't you introduced this in the form of a

bill?

Senator YOUNG. No, I haven't. I wish you would study it, because it does arrive at a figure for most commodities about halfway between the old formula and the modernized parity formula. I think it would reflect a much truer value for all commodities.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Mundt?

Senator MUNDT. I wonder, Mr. Secretary, if you wouldn't be willing to agree to send the committee a written report of your findings with the specific study on the points raised by Senator Young. I think they are of vital importance and if there are serious deficiencies, we would like to know what they are. It may be that there aren't any deficiencies. If the Secretary would examine them, perhaps we could have a discussion of this very significant aspect of the whole farm program.

Secretary BENSON. If it is the wish of the committee, we shall make a study and report to the committee. It will take some time, though.

Senator YOUNG. We had a provision in the bill that would require the Department to come up with a new parity formula by January 31, 1957. If you can accomplish that without legislation, it would be helpful.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to say, as far as I was concerned, I did not think it was the intention of the committee to make the dual parity formula a permanent affair. We provided for studies to be made and reports to be made by your Department at a specific date, and with recommendations as to what should be done. The moment you came up to us with changes, it was my intention, I know, and I am sure the intention of the committee, to take heed of whatever studies you made that would reflect a better formula than that which we now have.

Senator AIKEN. I want to say that Senator Young has brought up a matter which has concerned me very much for a long time. I was against the dual parity formula, because I feel whatever formula we have should apply to all commodities, and not have 1 formula for 3 or 4 commodities and another formula for other commodities. Use of the dual parity formula has raised a point that it is unfair to let one segment of our economy choose this particularly favorable base period to work from, and let agriculture take another period which is less favorable to agriculture.

I think Senator Young has a very important point here.

I also think that certain changes in agriculture which have taken effect should come into consideration, such as the use of antibiotics, hormones, and things of that nature. I know it is hard, or almost impossible, to keep up with them, but I would hope this suggestion of Senator Young's would be studied.

Evidently, someone has worked out the results for him which give very fair results.

I can recall when I first came here that the cost of labor was not included in determining the parity formula. That was obviously unfair.

Senator YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and the Secretary for answering my questions. I have many more which I would like to ask, but I know the other members of the committee may also wish to ask questions.

Secretary BENSON. We shall consider it, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. If the Senator and the Secretary will permit me, one moment I wish to refer in particular to the language in the vetoed bill, wherein the dual parity formula is discussed. This is as follows:

The Secretary shall make a thorough study of possible methods of improving the parity formula and report thereon, with specific recommendations, including drafts of necessary legislation to carry out such recommendations, to Congress not later than January 31, 1957.

This would indicate, as I stated a while ago, and I am sure I speak for most of those who advocated the dual formula, that it was not to be permanent, but it was only an additional way of further increasing the income of farmers during 1956.

Secretary BENSON. I think the bill, however, Mr. Chairman, did provide for its being permanent. There is no termination date.

The CHAIRMAN. No, we wanted to put the monkey on your back to come here with new plans, if you could. We have been talking about this now for 6 years, Mr. Secretary. I know, because I was instrumental in putting this extension of the dual parity formula in our legislation at the time it was so extended.

Secretary BENSON. Well, we'll be happy to study it, although I think it was not necessary to pass that legislation and single out four commodities to make the dual parity on.

Senator MUNDT. Do we have an understanding that the Department will make the study and bring up a report?

The CHAIRMAN. They were directed to under the bill we passed, and I hope they will do it administratively, if no other way.

Senator AIKEN. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is pretty difficult keeping tract of that monkey, and just whose back it is on. Senator THYE. It was my understanding that the vetoed bill would have covered all agricultural commodities and was not confined to a specific four commodities. It was to determine how best to arrive at parity and what would be a positive parity for agriculture in relation to labor, industry, and other segments of the economy.

Secretary BENSON. Are you talking about the study?

Senator THYE. Yes; and what I thought was in the bill that was rejected. I thought it was only for the calendar year of 1956,

The CHAIRMAN. That was the intention, and we felt that if the Department got busy on it they could present to us, this coming January, legislation to correct the situation.

Senator Holland.

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Secretary, first may I say that I approve the veto message. I didn't see how the President could do anything else. I think that this committee now and the Congress are endeavoring very earnestly to find out how we can improve the situation resulting after the veto message.

One of the things I wanted to ask is this: I noticed no hostile reference in the veto message to that provision of the conference bill which supplied additional funds for the support of perishable commodities in surplus. You will recall that the Senate committee bill provided $250 million for that purpose, and the bill as passed by the Senate provided $500 million. The bill that came from Congress had a more generous provision than now exists with reference to section 32 funds relating to the support of any one commodity that was in trouble.

I am hoping that we will be able to pass something in the soil-bank field.

My question now is this: Is there administration opposition to including in any soil-bank measure that may come into the realm of possibility-if we find it possible to pass the measure-a provision for the adding of $500 million, or if not that much, $250 million, with the more generous provisions that would allow you to use more of that in support of any one commodity-let's say beef or pork-that is possible when you rely upon section 32 formulas?

Secretary BENSON. În view of the fact, Senator Holland, that the soil-bank provision and plan seems to be rather noncontroversial, I would hope that we could act on that and maybe act on this other in a separate piece of legislation. I don't know that the Department would have objection. We feel that the $400 million which we would have available would likely meet our needs, although it might be a safeguard to have a little in addition. I think we did not propose that addition.

Senator HOLLAND. In other words, may we say for the record that the Department did not oppose and does not now oppose that provision that was in the bill?

Secretary BENSON. I think we did not oppose the provision of the bill. I think our preference would be for the amounts which were in the bill when it was reported out of this committee.

Senator HOLLAND. The $250 million?

· Secretary BENSON. Yes; I think that that, with what we have, would be ample. It was an authorization, as I recall.

Senator HOLLAND. Now, Mr. Secretary, going back to the figures for wheat which have been discussed in earlier parts of the hearing, what would the figure have been under the conference bill by which a 90 percent rigid price support was supplied in connection with the dual-parity provision? The dual parity would have carried the measure of support to about 96 percent of present parity, would it not?

Secretary BENSON. It would have been $2.51, as against $2, which we have now.

Senator YOUNG. No. That wouldn't be right.

The CHAIRMAN. That is 100 percent of parity.

Secretary BENSON. This is also with the multiple price included. Senator HOLLAND. I understand, Mr. Secretary, that that would have been the price in any subsequent year, if the multiple-pricesupport program had been voted in the referendum. But the question I am asking you is with reference to the amount in dollars and cents of price support for wheat for 1956, under the conference report, under which we had a program of 90-percent support with dual parity,

which, of course, meant in that instance the parity rate of 1910-14 could be applied.

Secretary BENSON. That is about $2.26, our calculation shows here. Senator HOLLAND. Then that rate would have been a very material increase of the national average price support of 1955 of $2.08, if the conference bill had been approved?

Secretary BENSON. That is correct, Senator Holland.

Senator HOLLAND. And the policy which you followed has simply resulted in bringing up the price support for 1956 nearly to the 1955 average, but without anything like the stimulating effect that would have been created if the conference bill had prevailed.

Secretary BENSON. That is correct. The figures which we have announced are pretty much in line with what we thought the support levels would be had we gotten the soil bank. We had planned that there could be an adjustment in the support level on wheat had we gotten the soil bank as we had hoped for.

Senator HOLLAND. Now, Mr. Secretary, having in mind that there is no inhibition at all to the planting of up to 15 acres of wheat, and that many parts of the Nation have not yet planted that wheat, is or is it not your opinion that a very great overplanting on those small farms would have resulted if the conference report had been adopted? Secretary BENSON. Yes; that is entirely possible. Of course, that is one of the problems we still have, Senator Holland; the situation with reference to these small farms.

We have recommended to the House committee, particularly, several times, that farmers be permitted to raise beyond the 15 acres if they wished, without penalty, so long as they used it on their own farm, for feed or food or for seed. The Senate passed that, I believe. It was reported out of this committee and passed by the Senate, but it has not gotten action by the House yet. We need it badly, because it is a pretty serious thing to have to enter into litigation with these farmers, when their only crime is that they have raised a little more than 15 acres to feed their own chickens.

Senator HOLLAND. The bill would have been a strong incentive for overplanting or for the great increase in planting of corn.

Senator BENSON. I think it would, without doubt.

Senator HOLLAND. One more question in connection with your increase in the wheat support.

I am glad to know you have gone up some, and still not enough to give heavy incentive to overplanting.

How much importance, if any, did you attach to the very heavy destruction of wheat acreage in the 6 States in the Southwest which have been hit by duststorms in these last 2 weeks?

Secretary BENSON. I can simply say it was one of the factors in our consideration. We haven't been able to measure accurately yet the extent of that damage. There is evidence that it is somewhat extensive, but we haven't measured it fully as yet. But it was one of the matters we took into consideration.

Senator HOLLAND. Press reports have indicated that several million acres of wheat were wiped out in those six States by the duststorms. Is that one of the factors you have taken into consideration in this slight upping of the wheat price support for 1956?

Secretary BENSON. That is correct.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thye?

Senator THYE. First, Mr. Secretary, I will say this:

If you had given us the assurance, when you came before the committee last January 12, that you would have accepted as favorable support levels as in the President's recommendations for 1956, you would not have had half the trouble that you did have. That I can tell you without question. I could have supported you and the administration more wholeheartedly than I found myself being able to do when I had to object to your stand on the farm support question because of your announced lower price levels.

Mr. Secretary, there is one question on which I am not clear. It is that in the proposed soil bank introduced yesterday provision is made for 51 million acres for the commercial corn area. But in your announced acreage program for 1956 you have established 43 million

acres.

Assuming that the soil bank is passed as is now embodied in the present bill, what will you do with the 51 million acres, and what will you do in connection with the 43 million that you have previously announced? I think that that will be most important to all of us in the corn area.

Secretary BENSON. I would like my men to back me up in this if I am in error; I hope that they will speak up.

The 43 million acres which have been announced would serve as a basis for price support purposes, and that the 51 million acres provided in the bill which embodies the soil bank would serve as the base from which you would measure your participation in the soil bank.

Senator THYE. In other words, for any farmer within the commercial area, you would establish his historical base in connection with the 43 million acreage allotment and then you will apply the 51 million national acreage allotment to his historical base for soil-bank purposes. In other words, his actual planting for 1956 cannot be in excess of his share of 43 million and the difference between his individual allotment under the 51 and the 43 million national acreage allotment would be the acres that would go to the soil bank to receive the soil bank compensation.

Am I right in my understanding of that?

Secretary BENSON. That is my understanding, but I would like to have Mr. McLain and Mr. Hughes comment on that.

Senator THYE. We must be clear on this.

Secretary BENSON. Of course, they are not limited to that acreage between 43 and 51. They may possibly put more acres in the soil bank than their share of the difference between 43 and 51. But the 51 million would serve as the basis for measuring participation in the soil bank. The 43 million would still serve as the basis for acreage allotments for price support purposes.

Senator THYE. Then in answering the question, we shall just simply say that you have already announced to the corn producers in the commercial area that what their base is for 1956 in that announcement will not be changed.

Secretary BENSON. I think we cannot change it. It is in the law. Senator THYE. I want to be certain. That has been announced, so that if a man has been given a 91-acre portion as a base acreage, that 91 acres stands, regardless of whether the 51 million corn acreage allotment now in the soil bank bill is enacted into law.