The next thing I commend you for is the stand on the cross-compliance program. Do you not think that if there is really an effective cross-compliance program, properly enforced, that with the self-help program which you have adopted in the State of Maine it would largely solve your problem? Mr. EDMUNDS. I think it would go a long ways toward it. I think it would be a big help. At the same time, I question if the potato industry in areas such as the State of Maine where we are extremely efficient so far as production is concerned, but we are a long ways from the market, can ever compete on a profitable basis with certain areas that surround the markets that we ship to that have, let us say, $1.50 a barrel advantage on us in terms of freight alone, that it is quite difficult to surmount that. Senator HOLLAND. You are not going to be able to change by legislation the law of supply and demand. Mr. EDMUNDS. No, sir. Senator HOLLAND. Or the laws of economic advantage by reason of the location of production, are you? Mr. EDMUNDS. We feel if you restrict production, production control as we have indicated here, we can at least hold our own and that the interests of the country will be served, because you are just going to build production up to what the country can use and not try to go further as the old program did. Senator HOLLAND. I was interested in your comment on cross compliance, because I have always been insistent upon that principle although I have not always prevailed, as you know, in the Congress. It seems to me that strict compliance, coupled with these other measures which you have taken, which might easily be enlarged, is probably your soundest answer, rather than to try to follow an industry which is not the same all over the country. And you have just said the nearness to the large markets of some producers is such as to give them a great advantage over you. Mr. EDMUNDS. I might say this, going back to cross-compliance, with what this industry can do to help itself, will certainly be a tremendous advantage. Whether we can achieve an economy that is as prosperous as some other segments of agriculture or of industry I would question, but it would be a tremendous advantage to us. There is no question about that. Senator HOLLAND. You do have a tremendous advantage over many areas in the bushelage that you can produce per acre. Mr. EDMUNDS. That is right. Senator HOLLAND. In other words, each area has its own advantages? Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes. Senator HOLLAND. But you produce a very fine potato and more of them per acre. Mr. EDMUNDS. I will agree with you. Senator HOLLAND. So with strict cross-compliance, and your doing everything that you can for yourself, do you not think that you can come back to relative prosperity? Mr. EDMUNDS. I would say, Senator, I would like to see controls on agriculture of any kind or on industry, I mean, a completely free economy. I would say that we could proceed with a completely free economy and compete with anybody. We are to a certain limit competing against an economy that is operating under a certain amount of Government guaranty and it puts us in a little bit of a difficult position. I mean, we are forced to compete with them, not directly, but if I buy a tractor it is made by somebody in Milwaukee who received a fair minimum wage plus to build that tractor, and if I buy power, and we have to buy a lot of power in our industry for loading potatoes, the fellow I buy it from is protected insofar as he can set rates to guarantee him a profit, and if I ship my potatoes, the railroad is protected, and if I call upon the telephone, the telephone company is protected. Senator HOLLAND. Does not the dairy industry, which seems to be very happy in this area, have all of those added costs that you are talking about? Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. Does not the lawyer and the doctor and all of the other people whose income has not necessarily gone up proportionately at all, have those same problems? Mr. EDMUNDS. To a certain extent, yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. But you think that the potato industry, in spite of the fiasco through which we went, should be protected against those raires in the way that you have suggested? Mr. EDMUNDS. I think it would be desirable. Senator AIKEN. In the interest of hearing as many witnesses as possible, I will forgo any questions. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. EDMUNDS. I would like to submit an additional bit of testimony submitted by Mr. Hussey. The CHAIRMAN. All right. It will be made a part of the record at this point. (The prepared statement of Frank W. Hussey, executive vice president, Potato Industry Council of Maine, Presque Isle, Maine, is as follows:) I. INITIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONCEPT Program principle No. 7: "Initial establishment concept," should either be eliminated altogether or modified to permit the continued use of minerals to the extent needed on farms in this area, for the following reasons: (1) The use of minerals is a must in our scheme of farming if we are to establish and maintain sod on our grassland farms. (2) By maintaining these established grassland areas in good condition the need for some permanent-type practices, and the patching up of damaged land later, is eliminated. (3) It is not safe to assume that even a majority of farmers will maintain what has been accomplished during the past 18 years when confronted with the unsatisfactory economic conditions outlined below. (4) Farmers in this area have been unusually hard hit by falling prices and increased operation costs, and are not financially able to carry out and maintain recurring practices to the extent needed. (5) The selection of practices needed on the farm, and the fields where they are to be applied, should be left to the farmer, because no farmer will spend his own money (50 percent of cost of a practice) for carrying out practices not needed on his farm. (6) The recordkeeping and certifications required in connection with the "initial establishment concept" has proven to be a very heavy, expensive burden, not only from an administrative standpoint but for farmers as well. Farmers are thoroughly fed up and disgusted with the initial concept idea. They want a simple, usable program that fits the farming needs of this area. II. TOPDRESSING AND THE IMPORTANCE AND NEED FOR CONTINUED USE OF LIME AND FERTILIZER (1) In this area, where much of our land is in vegetative cover and does not need frequent reseeding, farmers need help in maintaining this cover through the use of minerals. The only practical way this can be done is by applying lime and fertilizer as topdressing to established hay and pastureland. Without cost-sharing assistance, farmers cannot finance the cost of carrying out these practices in the volume needed. (2) The ACP program is more than an aid to agriculture alone; it is a national program of conservation to build up and maintain soil fertility and keep soilfertility reserves on hand for future needs. For this reason, city folks as well as farm people, recognize that farmers need financial help in building this soil bank. (3) Large amounts of public funds have already been spent in an effort to maintain and increase these fertility reserves through the use of materials, and it would seem very unwise not to protect this investment by continued use of these minerals. (4) Liming to the extent needed is a must, if other mineral elements are to be used effectively. (5) All agencies, including the college of agriculture, experiment station, extension service, and the Soil Conservation Service, recognize the need for and are strongly behind the use of lime. Because of its importance in developing and maintaining a permanent type of agriculture in this area, we believe that assistance for this practice should be gaged by the need on the farm rather than by saying that we will help only once and then won't help again. (6) Conservation needs estimates indicate that more than 400,000 tons of lime are needed annually in Maine for maintenance alone. However, in spite of the great need for lime in Maine, the tonnage used annually is dropping. For example, in 1947, our peak year, approximately 100,000 tons were used in the State, while in 1954 the total tonnage used was only 43,000. The above figures closely parallel the drop in tonnage for the country as a whole-where in 1947 about 30 million tons were used, and in 1953 only about 20 million tons were applied. Since lime is basic to the efficient use of all fertilizers, restrictions on its use should be eliminated. (7) We are in agreement with the principle that assistance for limestone and minerals, as well as all other ACP practices, should be given only to the extent needed on a particular farm, and that county committees should constantly be on the alert to see that these minerals go only where needed and in amounts sufficient to do the job. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE PRESENT POLICY OF APPOINTING STATE AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEEMEN I. PERIOD OF SERVICE Present regulations require that 1 of the 3 former members of the State committee be replaced each year. In our opinion, this is not a sound policy, for the following reasons: (1) Three years is too short a time for a new man to become thoroughly familiar with all phases of the many programs administered by the State committee. (2) Under the present policy, with only 2 years' experience on the committee, one of the members must then take over as chairman. (3) State ASC committees are not only admiinstrative bodies-they are also policymaking committees and, as such, must reach decisions that are sound. This cannot be accomplished if the determination of policy and administration is left to men who themselves have not had sufficient time to develop a clear understanding of the many regulations, instructions, and details of all programs. (4) We favor and subscribe wholeheartedly to a rotational system for State ASC committees. However, we do not agree with the 3-year plan now in effect. We favor and recommend a rotation plan which makes possible the continuation Because of changes that are bound to of farmer members on a 6-year basis. occur due to death, changing occupations, and other factors that interfere with continuous service, not anticipated at the time of appointment, a 6-year term is none too long. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Frank W. Roberts. Give us your name in full, and your occupation. Are you speaking for any other witnesses that may be on this list? 64440-56-pt. 7-5 STATEMENT OF FRANK W. ROBERTS, SECRETARY, CONNECTICUT VEGETABLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION, MIDDLETOWN, CONN. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman and members, no, I think I am the only one. I am speaking for the vegetable industry. However, I had a statement that I would like to make myself. The one I am reading now is for Mr. Lee Aldo, who is the president of the Connecticut Vegetable Growers' Association, who was unable to come today. The CHAIRMAN. We will just put it in the record. Do you differ from it in any manner? Mr. ROBERTS. I am secretary of that organization. The CHAIRMAN. Are you a farmer? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; I am. The CHAIRMAN. We will place his statement in the record at this point, and you may proceed with your own statement. Mr. ROBERTS. All right. Mine is going to be completely different than his. It is a statement of my own in relation to vegetable price supports. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. All right. Is this your 1-page statement? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. I will be speaking now for Mr. Aldo. He has written this: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Lee Aldo. I am president of the Connecticut Vegetable Growers Association. Early in the 1955 Connecticut vegetable growing season our growers were met with low prices for their vegetables as a result of delayed marketing by States south of us. Later we had a prolonged dry spell-the longest on recordwhich was so severe it caused the loss of many crops. In August the rains and floods came. Some of our growers had their crops completely wiped out. No Connecticut vegetable growers escaped loss from the long period of excessive rainy weather. Gentlemen, in spite of the above, we Connecticut vegetable growers are opposed to public subsidies and Government price supports for the production of vegetables. Because they decrease efficiency of production, increase cost to the consumer, and in the end involve Government regulation and artificial controls of production itself. We urge all other segments of agriculture to embrace the principle as rapidly as possible and thus avoid the otherwise ultimate socialization of agriculture. We believe that high mandatory supports encourage overproduction, inefficient farming, and lower prices for our agricultural products. We have a keen desire that your committee should know that all acreage removed from production of supported crops be planted or devoted to soilbuilding crops for nonharvested, nongrazing, soil-conserving purposes only, and that such compliance be made a condition of eligibility for any price support or subsidy payment. Legislation is required to define and accomplish this purpose, in the interest of avoiding overproduction from crop to crop and particularly to those crops whose producers request no supports by public moneys. We urge Congress that we must have a continued favorable ICC ruling regarding motor hauling of agricultural commodities. Fuels for nonhighway uses should not be taxed to support other facilities. That is the end of his statement. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now what is yours? Do you agree with what he states? Mr. ROBERTS. I do. The CHAIRMAN. Have you got something different? Mr. ROBERTS. Mine is just in regard to flexible price supports. Mr. ROBERTS. This is just 1 page here. My name is Frank W. Roberts. I am a vegetable grower and live on Maple Shade Road in Middletown, Conn. For over 30 years I have grown and marketed over 25 acres of vegetables per year. Much of this time I have been active in such organizations as the Farm Bureau, Grange, Connecticut Conference on Farm Organizations, and the Connecticut Vegetable Growers Association. Experience in observing price supports as they work on vegetables in Connecticut has led me to believe they can serve no good purpose. However, I wish to concede that there is a place for them in the socalled basic crops. A basic crop grower cannot, of himself, do anything to influence the market during a depressed price period. We all know the results of a high price-support program. Huge surpluses pile up, costing millions of dollars for storage space. These surpluses are a constant threat to market prices and make congressional appropriations a must. Farmers in my State are paying through the nose for this program. For that matter, every citizen is paying smartly for a program that isn't solving the problem. It is not altogether the amount of money one acquires through profit, salary, or wages, but what that money will buy in the market place that counts. There is one plan, though started, that hasn't been given sufficient time to show results. That plan is the flexible price-support plan; a plan in which the law of supply and demand can be allowed to work to a certain degree. It has a minimum price for the protection of the farmer, will automatically help to reduce surpluses, and be fairer to all producers and to the consumer. For years farmers through their farm organizations have been asking for flexible price support. Gentlemen, what I am trying to say to you is this: I think the time has come for people representing us in Congress to take a courageous, statesmanlike, bipartisan approach to the price-support idea. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Let me ask you this: Are you familiar with the flexible price supports as applied to the dairy industry? Mr. ROBERTS. Not so well, no. I think I have a general idea. The CHAIRMAN. The last time 90 percent price support was applied to the dairy industry was in 1953, put on by Mr. Benson. Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. As a condition to retaining it, he asked that the dairy people try to help themselves, but it turned out that many of them still continued to produce under the support prices for Uncle Sam. Well, now, the next year, 1954, we had the flexible price supports. You say that low prices would mean less production, and that less production would mean better prices. That is the sum of your argument, is it not? Mr. ROBERTS. I think through price supports we are trying to carry through an idea which would cause a reduction. The CHAIRMAN. All right. I want to bring out that is the only one in which the price is flexed under the law. You say that by the application of the flexible price support that would have a tendency of reducing production, so that production would come more in line with consumption? Mr. ROBERTS. Of course, I was relating it to the basic crops. Mr. ROBERTS. To grain, et cetera. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that has not applied to it yet. It will soon take effect. In 1954 we had the flexible price support on dairy products-the production increased from the previous year by over 2 billion pounds of milk and today with flexible price support pro |