The problems of irrigation and reclamation and the application of the excess lands provision find peculiar, perhaps unique conditions in Wyoming.

Senator BARRETT. In high altitudes?

Father VIZZARD. I do not in anything I say today want to suggest that our friends from Wyoming are out of step with the rest of the country, particularly the other 16 Western States in which this problem exists, but I would respectfully submit that the conditions and the problems of one State should not be used as the reason for changing basic reclamation law.

If specific exemptions or changes are required for a particular area, they should be handled on a project-by-project basis, and not through general change in the reclamation law.

Senator BARRETT. I couldn't agree with you that conditions requiring enlargement of the acreage limitations are confined solely to Wyoming. I think it applies with equal force in many other areas of the country besides Wyoming.

Be that as it may, we will let these people speak for themselves. The point I have in mind is that if it were possible to have a 320acre limitation, we would not have any problem. I would certainly agree with your suggestion.

If it were made that way, we would certainly be in pretty good shape in Wyoming.

Father VIZZARD. These hearings today, as I understand it, are concerned with reclamation law on two levels:

First, the general policies of excess land provision of the reclamation law.

Second, 3 specific bills, S. 1425, S. 3448, S. 2541.

For reasons which will become apparent, the National Catholic Rural Life Conference is firmly in favor of the Douglas-MorseNeuberger bill, S. 1425. It will become equally apparent why, unless much more compelling reasons are brought forward than those which have so far been adduced, we are strongly opposed to S. 3448. We have seen no evidence indicating that 320 acres of irrigated land is inadequate for an efficient and prosperous farm operation.

As to S. 2541, frankly I have rarely heard anything as disturbing as the proposal contained therein. To put it within the discretionary power of the Secretary of the Interior or any other officer of the executive branch whether or not to apply the excess land provisions means, in effect, without any disrespect for present incumbent in that office, to charge the wolves with watching the sheep.

No one knows better than the Secretary himself how many pressures from large landowners he would be subjected to. And those of us who have followed this issue closely over many years know how little reason there is for confidence that, despite all the good will in the world, he or anyone holding that office may be able to resist these pressures.

Senator ANDERSON. I cannot let that pass without saying that there is at least one Member of the United States Senate who has a much better opinion of Cabinet officers, but he is prejudiced because he has been on the other side of the table. I can cite you hundreds of instances where the heads of official departments have tried pretty

well to protect the interests of all citizens. We all have a right to an opinion on that subject.

The first time I took an action with reference to the sustained yield unit, one of the most prominent cattlemen in my State issued a statement that I had then embraced the complete policy of the Communist Party. That still stands in the record. I do not believe it is quite true. There is a little more sentiment for sustained yield unit and in fact, the individual himself has recently advocated the same doctrine.

But, nonetheless, people in our Government in my opinion, do occasionally stand up, and I think very frequently stand up, in defense of the common good.

I just want to put that in a position in there. I am not trying to change your mind. But I do want you to know that there are those who do believe that people who hold up their hands and swear to defend the Constitution and laws of the country sometimes try to do it, and generally do it.

Father VIZZARD. I am very happy you interjected that comment and that this record will show the courage you personally have shown when you did hold such a capacity.

Senator BARRETT. May I suggest to you, Father.

My bill provides only for a reasonable level of living for the settlers on the project, and only after a governor of a State initiates a request, and after a full and complete hearing where every citizen would have an opportunity to appear and interpose objections.

Furthermore, my bill would not necessarily provide for as much as you are advocating. I want to make that pretty clear. So while you are criticizing me, I am not willing to go as far as you are willing to go. That makes your criticism a bit unfair in my book.

I think if these poor veterans come out to the western country, and I do not care whether it is Wyoming, Montana, or where it is, they should be given a fair chance to make out and if they had the opportunity to settle on maybe 240 acres or 260, let alone 320 acres, as you propose, that they would have a far better chance to make a living for themselves and their families.

I have seen hundreds of these boys come out whose parents had given them as much as 10 or 15 thousand dollars, and after working for several years they lost every penny of it. And that's not a very nice picture.

I do not think your criticism is well-founded at all. I really do not think you have looked into it. When these people from our section of the country who have studied this matter for upwards of 40 years come in here and testify, I think it ought to give you some reason to stop, look, and listen and do a little more investigating before you take such a positive and such a critical position.

Father VIZZARD. Thank you, Senator. I assure you I have stopped and looked and I am now listening.

Senator BARRETT. I hope you will give it more deliberation because you have had the training whereby you ought to be able to evaluate the situation quite judiciously.

Father VIZZARD. I have usually been in the position of being up in the pulpit where the audience could not talk back.

Senator ANDERSON. This is a refreshing experience, is it not?

Father VIZZARD. This is an invaluable experience.

I must say what I am learning this morning, among other things, is that perhaps my cynicism, if I may call it that, based not on ivory tower reflections but on actual observations, might be softened.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you for that last statement. That is fine.

Father VIZZARD. In regard to the general policy of the excess lands provision, the National Catholic Rural Life Conference is seriously concerned over the destruction of this policy by exemption. We are glad that at least today this destruction by exemption is coming under critical review.

We are glad that we have this opportunity at a public hearing to reiterate our basic convictions and our longstanding policy. These convictions are well known to most of you here today, but for the record, I would like to quote directly the current policy position of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference on this matter:

Land-tenure policy and trends in landownership are closely connected with the welfare of the family and the distribution of private property. Even when brought about under the guise of economic efficiency, the concentration of land in the hands of a few is a practice destructive at once of wholesome family living and of widespread private ownership. The National Catholic Rural Life Conference stands unalterably opposed to such concentration of landownership.

The conference strongly advocates the framing of public land policy in such a way as to protect family-type farmers and to safeguard them from the inroads of land monopolists, whether the monopolists be individuals or corporations. One of the objectives of the conference is to encourage residence upon the land by families who operate their own productive and efficiently managed agricultural holdings. In accordance with sound American principles and established Christian teaching, the conference wishes to see as many families as possible enjoy the light, the space, the air, and experience the wholesome and encouraging sense of enterprise and ownership fostered by productive rural living.

The National Catholic Rural Life Conference intends to resist to the extent of its powers the dangerous collectivistic tendency of the large landholders who would repeal the acreage limitations wisely attached to federally sponsored reclamation and irrigation projects. It recalls that outstanding men of both major political parties have favored the inclusion of such restrictions in the bills authorizing appropriations for reclamation projects. The conference does not wish to see this tradition departed from in the case of the Central Valley project of California or in any other projects which have been or will be authorized.

In reiterating the genuine Catholic viewpoint on this grave social question, the conference draws attention to the statement of Pope Pius XII on the subject of widespread ownership:

"When the distribution of property is an obstacle to this end (the genuine productivity of social life and the normal returns of national economy) *** the state may, in the public interest, intervene by regulating its use or even, if it canot equitably meet the situation in any other way, by decreeing the expropriation of property, giving a suitable indemnity. For the same purpose, small and medium holdings in agriculture *** should be guaranteed and promoted." The conference considers the acreage restrictions of the reclamation acts to be in full accord with this teaching.

It is noteworthy that the repeal of acreage limitation in the Central Valley and in other projects would benefit special interest groups and damage familytype farmers; that it would mean diversion of federally appropriated funds to speculative commercial enterprises and corporation farms; that it would appreciably increase the number of migrant agricultural workers, who with their families are required for large-scale farm operations; that it would encourage the exploitation of these workers; that by aggravating the trend to large-scale landholdings and attaching speculative values to land which individuals or families wish to purchase, it would militate against the best interest of the people in other parts of the country.

The National Catholic Rural Life Conference, accordingly, asks that our National Legislature take into consideration these facts as well as the pleas of the special interest groups who stand to benefit by repeal.

Senator ANDERSON. Could I stop you there, Father?

Father VIZZARD. Yes, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. Í merely want to say that Congress has some responsibility in this field.

I did assist in putting in a provision against the 160-acre limitation in the Small Projects Act. It was the only way that the Small Projects Act could get passed.

You are sometimes confronted with that sort of a situation. I felt the Small Projects Act was a very worthwhile piece of legislation and a step in what I regard as a very proper direction in getting these things to the States where they are sufficiently small.

I just want to pledge you this morning that I am going to try to watch the projects that come through while I am connected with the Congress in any way and try to make sure that we do not continue the exemption into the Small Projects Act, where it is not necessary. I feel there are certain areas, as Senator Barrett has pointed out, where 240 acres are very desirable. I do hope that we will take a good attitude on it.

As you know, I am happy to have you cite this from the Catholic Rural Life Conference. While I was in the department, Archbishop Lucey was very helpful to me and a very good friend, and I am very much interested in the observations you make.

I do want to suggest to you that in taxation matters we are steadily looking for loopholes and the loophole on the 160-acre limitation is that opinion which held that, in States other than community property States, it was perfectly all right to have two 160 acres, husband and wife, and minor children could also have them. I do not know the basis for it.

I am sure the Secretary, whoever did it, was sure he was within the law. But possibly a revision of that opinion might be far more effective than trying to get a change in the other provisions of the law. I do believe that if we try to do what has been suggested here, that in an area such as the Central Valley, hold to 160 acres per farm and not per person, we might cure most of the things you are talking about.

I judge you realize that I am quite sympathetic with the situation in the Riverton project and voted to take off the limitation and give them some more land because I thought it was more important to let a man have a chance to make a living than just the bare skeleton of the law be observed.

But I want you to know that there are many people in the Congress who are very sympathetic with the position taken by the National Catholic Rural Life Confrence on this question.

When you refer specifically to Central Valley, it may there be that the application of the doctrine that two people can hold it and minor children can hold some more is what you really should be worried about far more than the other operations of the law. I am going to suggest that for your own information.

Father VIZZARD. Senator, if I may make a comment on the beginning of your comment, about the fact that you felt it necessary to vote for the Small Projects Act without the acreage limitation built into it, I know very well that frequently Congressmen and other people in all walks of life are faced with the difficult choice of deciding be

tween two evils, and choosing the lesser of two evils. But we also hold that when the opportunity occurs to rectify what might have been evil in the lesser of the two evils, that opportunity should be taken. That is what we think is presented in Senator Douglas's bill.

Senator ANDERSON. May I just illustrate again, because I do want you and your organization to realize what some of us get up against. As you may know, I labored and lost on the question of tidelands oil. At one time in a proceeding, Senator Taft said that a filibuster was organized and that the junior Senator from New Mexico was the organizer and leader of it. I am opposed to filibusters. I was having extended debate. But I did not participate in an effort to filibuster the bill to death. We did talk about it for a long time until Senator Taft called us into his majority office and said, "What is it you are really fighting for?", and I said, "For the Continental Shelf." I had given up hopes of trying to stop a tidelands bill at some time. We could talk that one to death, but there would be a next one in the next session.

He permitted 2 or 3 of us to take the bill and write out the broad framework of the Continental Shelf bill. He pledged that bill would be passed. It was passed. I think the Government probably has title to $60 or $100 billion resources on the Continental Shelf.

In exchange for that, I did not participate in the filibuster against the tidelands. I was worn out anyway. You have to come sometimes to a decision that something is better than nothing. That is what we get into in the Small Projects Act.

Many of us have felt for a long time that on projects under $5 million, we waste the time of the Congress, the time of the Department of Interior, the time of the Bureau of Reclamation when the State engineer, fully familiar with the details, may put the project through. In order to achieve that, we had to sacrifice something that you hold quite dear. I only say to you that I do not believe it is going to be abused. That was the only purpose of my remark. I hope it will not be abused, and there are some of us who will try to keep it from being abused.

Father VIZZARD. Thank you, sir.

Senator BARRETT. Father Vizzard, I would like to put this question to you, since you brought up this subject.

The Owl Creek project was mentioned here yesterday, and reference was made to the fact that the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming declared that it would be impossible under our law to provide that a district could be organized in our State in such a way that the person who owned more than 160 acres of land, or a man and wife 320 acres of land, would be obliged to sign a recordable contract for the sale. As a consequence, it was necessary for us to get the law changed for the Owl Creek project so that the 160-acre limitation did not apply to that project.

The question I would like to ask you is this: As a question of morals let us get down to natural law or the moral law-do you conceive that it is right and proper to say to an American citizen who has spent a lifetime working hard and acquiring a property right on a piece of privately owned land, acquiring a water right to apply the water to those lands, and that by proper industry and frugality he is able to build up a piece of property in excess of 320 acres, that