would take. After that is done I know that we in the Department feel that as a practical proposition it would help the program. Mr. THOм. And make it easier to execute? Mr. DAVIS. Much easier. Mr. THURSTON. As a corollary to the limitation of the production of grain, would it not follow that there would be a limitation in the land available for planting of the various crops? Mr. DAVIS. It would mean that there would be more land available to go back into grass and pasture as the acreage cultivated for grain is reduced; yes. LAND-UTILIZATION AND LAND-WITHDRAWAL POLICIES Mr. THURSTON. Is your organization cooperating with or closely associated with the National Resources Board that has under consideration this land-utilization policy? Mr. DAVIS. Yes; our land-utilization division of the triple A is cooperating closely with them. Mr. THURSTON. In the press I have seen a statement to the effect that they are mapping out a program which might involve $50,000,000 a year to be used in withdrawing lands, and multiplying that by a 10-year program it would amount to $500,000,000. Has that policy, or that proposal, been submitted to the Congress, to obtain the sanction of the Congress rather than just having this Board to act? Mr. DAVIS. I think that the entire report of the Resources Board was submitted by the President to the Congress, but there is no legislation looking toward carrying it out that has been considered or drafted. Mr. THURSTON. Does that contemplate legislation upon the part of Congress, or does it contemplate that the plan is to be adopted and funds allocated without the express sanction of the Congress? Mr. DAVIS. I do not know. I would say that our own feeling in the Department has been that a long-time program for land adjustment ought to be worked out with the Congress and embodied in definite legislation. But nothing has been done along that line, so far as I know. Mr. THURSTON. In other words, the withdrawal of substantially large tracts of land in any community or in any area would vitally affect the governmental subdivisions in that locality, and rather than to have it come from those outside of the ordinary current channels of government, it seems to me that you want to have a definite, welldefined policy by Congress. And if Congress would not be willing to accept such a proposal made by others it seems to me it is highly important that it ought to be referred here for determination. Mr. DAVIS. I think that is correct. In approaching any of these local projects there is no question you have to work them out with the local people and have the cooperation of the county and State governments affected. Mr. THURSTON. We perhaps are all aware that in the $4,880,000,000 bill that passed the House, there was a provision that would give the President the right to exercise eminent domain, which would mean that the Executive branch might, through a declaration, include some large area to be withdrawn, which action might not have the support of the people in that State. I think that throughout the country there is a good deal of apprehension in that respect, as to whether the right to condemn will be included in this program. There is one other collateral question that I would like to ask you, Mr. Davis, in view of the pronounced policy. Mr. DAVIS. I would like to comment a little on this suggestion that some funds out of the $4,880,000,000 appropriation might be made available for land acquisition, carrying out a program that has been started, by saying, Mr. Chairman, that funds for the work that has been done so far have come from two sources. The $25,000,000 allocation from P. W. A. funds is what started it. Then, in connection with the funds appropriated by Congress for emergency drought relief, $50,000,000 was allocated by the President to acquire lands in the drought sections which would have the effect of assisting people stranded out there who could not make a living on that land to be put in places where they might have a better opportunity to improve their condition. It is from those two sources that this program has been financed to date, pending the consideration by Congress of a long-time land policy, which has to be worked out with great care, as you suggest. Pending that, I have no knowledge on this point, but I would not be at all surprised if a certain allocation out of that fund might not be made to continue this program. I want to reassure you that the program so far is being worked with the local people, and not against their wishes at all. Mr. THURSTON. Let me ask you one other question. As this withdrawal of land from cultivation proceeds, it becomes more. obvious that it is unwise for the Government to open up new and other land for cultivation. Mr. DAVIS. I think that has been obvious for some time. Mr. THURSTON. I hope that the proper agency, whatever it may be, will give the same attention and stress that phase of the matter to the same degree that they are giving attention to withdrawing land from cultivation. Mr. DAVIS. That is the purpose. The land withdrawn goes to several uses. It goes into grazing areas that tend to rebuild ranges ploughed up under the pressure for increased production that was adopted at the time of the war. And it goes into parks and game refuges, and so forth, all with the idea of keeping it out of use. Mr. THURSTON. I am fearful that the same hand that withdraws land from cultivation will place other and additional land in cultivation. Mr. DAVIS. I think Congress should, in any land policy adopted, settle that point. Recently, I think, an order has been issued withdrawing from entry the remainder of the public domain. So far as I know, in that particular branch of the Government, there is no difference from your point of view. Mr. THURSTON. But large funds have been made available in the last few years to promote additional irrigation and reclamation projects. Mr. DAVIS. That is accompanied by the proviso that we should at the same time take out of production a quantity of land which, in an average year, would produce the same amount of farm products that the irrigated land would produce. Mr. THURSTON. If we could freeze the irrigation projects until after the farmers could get caught up with fair prices, it would be desirable. Mг. THOм. So far as these irrigated lands are concerned, they do not contribute much to the so-called "surplus crops ", as I think I have previously brought out. Is that correct? Mr. DAVIS. In the irrigation districts that I am familiar with they do not contribute much to the basic nationally grown commodities, but they may affect materially at one time or another the production of some vegetables and livestock, because it is a diversified type of agriculture, as a rule. Mr. THURSTON. There is wheat grown on this irrigated land, is there not? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mг. THOм. How much wheat, a great quantity? Mr. DAVIS. Not a great quantity, because the land is capable of producing crops of higher value than wheat. Alfalfa probably makes more money, year in and year out, in connection with dairy products, than does wheat. But wheat is very well established in the irrigation districts in Montana and Idaho, for example, in rotation. Mr. THURSTON. The areas that produce alfalfa in large quantities, which is processed into dairy products, do sharply compete with the areas where there are dairy interests. Mr. DAVIS. In feeds. Mr. SANDLIN. But where there are these irrigation projects in the West and Northwest, would it be practicable to move these people, who have gone there and built their homes and built their communities? It would not be your suggestion that they be wiped out entirely, would it? Mr. DAVIS. No, sir; I have not thought that practicable. On the contrary, the feeling of the men in the western States is that the people on submarginal or so-called "dry land" should be given an opportunity to make a living on irrigated land, providing we are taking out land of equal productivity in the total at the same time, so as not to increase the agricultural land by that policy. Mr. TARVER. Do you think that type of land that is used in dryland agriculture is the type of land that should be taken out? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; and to assist the men to leave dry land where they have not been able from one year to another to provide a living, and to go on irrigated land where they can make a living, or to place them under farm conditions where they can make a living. TAX RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS Mr. Chairman, I will put in the record here a statement showing the tax receipts and the disbursements from tax receipts. This statement is as of December 31, 1934. In round figures, the total tax receipts from cotton were $193,478,000; from the compensating tax on jute and paper, $11,334,000; on wheat, $181,328,000; on tobacco, $34,291,000; on corn, $8,182,000; on hogs, $175,616,000; on sugar, $33,887,000; on peanuts which only recently have been subjected to the processing tax, $430,917, and unclassified, $1,135,000. Now, the expenditures on account of cotton up to that date were $202,546,000; on wheat, $146,749,000; and on corn, $30,123,000. I should say at this point that the corn-and-hog program is a combined program, which will explain the reason why there appears to be so much more paid out on corn than was collected as the actual tax, or the processing tax income on corn. The amount paid out on account of hogs was, in round figures, $92,026,000; on tobacco, $18,995,000; and on sugar, $55,541. The total expenditures as of that date amounted to $490,497,000. I gave you a figure a moment ago showing that we had increased that by about $100,000,000 by disbursements since that date. Those checks have been sent out since that date. Mr. TARVER. I understood you to say awhile ago that approximately $31,000,000 more had been paid out in cotton benefits than had been collected through the medium of the cotton processing tax, but the statement you read indicates that approximately $193,000,000 of processing taxes were collected, while the expenditures on account of cotton were $202,000,000, making a difference of only $9,000,000. Mr. DAVIS. What I said, or intended to say, was that the obligations under the program, but not the actual disbursements, indicated that. I stated that the obligations, according to the estimates made up under the current program, amounted to about $30,000,000 more than the estimated receipts. That does not mean that more has been paid out than has been received at any one time. Then, there is an item of $61,000,000 of floor stock-tax collections, which amount remains in the Treasury and which is set up on our books as a reserve. Mr. TARVER. You mentioned that awhile ago. It was that $31,000,000 that I had reference to. Mr. SANDLIN. When you state the year of the program, you mean the crop year of 1935, do you not? Mr. DAVIS. No; we referred to the crop year 1934. Mr. BUCKLES. It is on an estimated basis. Mr. DAVIS. Since I am putting this statement in the record, I will not go into further details with reference to the receipts and disbursements under the processing taxes. (The statement referred to is as follows:) |