1102 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



grass or woodland, we pay them one-fifth of the first cost, or $4 of the 

 first year's cost, for the next 5 years. 



It is truly and fully a soil-conservation program in effect, but while 

 we are doing that, we are also taking out of production those crops 

 that are in surplus production. If the program which I recommend 

 is put into effect there will be very little need, if any need, for acreage 

 allotments, or for a reduced parity support price on farm crops, so it 

 serves a threefold purpose. 



The things facing us today arc the problem of conserving our soil 

 and the problem of keeping the farmer prosperous, for he must be 

 kept prosperous in order to keep the Nation prosperous, as I am 

 sure every one of you w^ill agree. 



' The whole thing is that we do need a leveling out of our agricultural 

 production. We produce too much of one thing and not enough of 

 another. I don't like this acreage allotment thing and the farmers 

 don't like it. They don't like to be told how they can run their farms. 

 They would like to do it voluntarily and they can do it I feel certain 

 under my bill H. R. 2368, if we will make the 90-percent parity 

 supports permanent. 



I have given this a lot of thought. I have worked on this problem 

 constantly during my services in Congress. I am now in the eleventh 

 year, and I know you folks, many of you, have done likewise. I have 

 talked this matter over wdth many members of this committee, with 

 Mr. Pace, with Mr. Hope, with Mr. Poage, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Hoeven, 

 and most of the members who have been here during the past 11 

 sessions. 



Gentlemen, I am sincere about this thing and I want you to know it, 

 and I think my testimony proves there is no politics in it with me. 

 Anyone who plays politics with this proposition is playing politics 

 with a thing that is the most important to the progress, the peace, 

 and the prosperity of America, and I might say the whole w^orld. 



Mr. Pace. Thank you very much. You have given us a very 

 excellent statement. 



Mr. Granger wishes to ask a question. 



Mr. Granger. I appreciate the statement of the gentleman. I 

 think he has given emphasis to soil conservation, as he indicated in 

 his statement, and he played down acreage control and price support. 

 I believe if we spent $1,000,000 in soil conservation for the next 

 25 years, it would cost us less in the long run than what it will cost us 

 for price support, and for flood control, which will become more 

 expensive eveiy year. I certainly agree with you. We need a formula 

 however to put in effect your recommendations. 



Mr. Jensen. I think we could spend $1,000,000,000 here and be 

 justified, if we had the money to spend, but I brought it down to a 

 very sensible and proper figure, commensurate with what I think w^e 

 can spend under present conditions. 



I am not asking this committee to appropriate too much more 

 money in addition to what we already appropriate for soil conserva- 

 tion, and compliance payments. The amount is up to the committee; 

 but I do feel, gentlemen, that we have an opportunity, if we take hold 

 of it, to stop all these silly plans, including the Brannan plan and the 

 Aiken plan, and a lot of other silly, unwoi'kable, un-American plans 

 that have come before this committee. 



