CONTENTS 753 Page 237 Bodine, Leo V., representing National Lumber Manufacturers 238 Gehlbach, Melvin P., chairman, Soil Bank Association, Lincoln, Ill.. ers Korves, Ted, Gurney Seed & Nursery Co., Yankton, S. Dak- Lynn, John, legislative director, American Farm Bureau Federation.. Morgan, H. R., game and fish commissioner, State of North Dakota.. Moir, Stuart, forest counsel, Western Forestry & Conservation Asso- Newsom, Herschel D., master, National Grange. 75 Norton, E. M., secretary, National Milk Producers Federation_ Selke, George A., commissioner, department of conservation, State White, Richard P., executive vice president, American Association of Formula for determining 1956 acreage reserve payment rates___ Letter of May 9, 1956, to Hon. George D. Aiken. Review of soil bank acreage reserve program in re peanuts. Table 1, 1956 acreage reserve statistics as of January 11, 1957....... Table 2, acres and obligations for 1956 conservation reserve pro- Tobacco acreage reserve program for 1957- 1956 crop production and percent 1956 production is of 5-year 1955 and 1956 planted acres, harvested acres, and production in SOIL BANK PROGRAM MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1957 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m. in room 1310, House Office Building, Hon. Harold D. Cooley (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order. We have Secretary Benson with us this morning. I want to say to the Secretary that we are delighted to have him with us. I would like to inquire how long it would be possible for you to remain with the committee. I notified you in my communication that it is our purpose to survey and review with you the operations of the 1956 soil bank program. It is my hope that we may limit these hearings to that particular program, but it is entirely probably that we will stray away from it at times. I want you to know that this is not an investigation. We have not started into this with that idea or that spirit. There has been considerable criticism of the program. I suppose that is to be expected because it is new, comprehensive and all embracing. There has been criticism in various sections of the country and perhaps you have some explanations which you would like to offer and which will clear up some of the criticisms we have heard. One is that large amounts of the soil conservation money have been expended in certain areas of the country which produce certain commodities that receive larger payments than they have received in other areas. One criticism I have heard frequently is that in determining the corn and wheat soil bank payments they were based on 60 percent of the price support. In the tobacco area it is something like 37 percent. There may be an explanation for that. We have heard, too, that payments amounting to only $60 an acre have been paid to farmers in certain areas, others have been paid $50. Another thing is that you have lifted the penalty provisions in the first order for those who fail to carry out their contracts and actually abandoned their contract after it had been determined that they would have a good harvest. I am giving you an idea of some of the criticisms we have received. If you have a prepared statement or comments you would like to make, you may proceed. We bear in mind the fact that you would like to conclude your testimony here this morning and make available your associates hereafter. |