Thus rigid price supports have proven they are not the answer to the farmers' problem. However, we are in this mess and it has been building up for 20 years. We can't expect that we can just cut out price supports entirely; but by having a flexible price support and making it less attractive to the favored 25 percent, I feel we will come out of this mess.

Flexible price supports has not had a chance to prove itself. It has only been in force since July and already we have found dairy feed $8 per ton less than a year ago.

There definitely must be more teeth in the use of acreage taken out of production through price support. The 75 percent of the farmers not producing one or more of the six basic commodities certainly should not be jeopardized by the diverted acres.

These diverted acres should be nonproductive. There should be no harvest from them and no cattle fed on them. A cover crop planted to preserve the land but not harvested.

In short, any farmer who agrees to accept price support under the terms of reduced acreage should not have their cake and eat it too by putting this acreage into another farm-income crop.

I do not favor farmers being paid not to produce. This, too, was tried 20 years ago without permanent results. It's just not a healthy situation. It doesn't build a strong farm economy. Rather educates "This world owes me a living." Labor certainly is doing a bang-up job along these lines right now-let's keep farmers the rugged individualists we pride ourselves in being.

There are too many pitfalls in such a proposition-the temptation is too great. There will be he who never intended planting the acreage cashing in the gentleman farmer who can see a way of collecting and he didn't need help in the first place.

To sum up-in my opinion and I am sure it is the opinion of many farmers in the Northeast-we should give flexible price supports a chance to prove to us farmers what the results will be. That a soil bank program be created. That greater efforts be made to increase our foreign markets for agricultural products. That quality products be given recognition in a more favorable program for acreage and price.

The CHAIRMAN. We have some quality products in Arkansas and Louisiana, too.

Mrs. GERISCH. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

You mentioned the soil bank. Have you given any thought as to how it should be handled?

Mrs. GERISCH. I have given it thought.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you apply that to the diverted acres or to a certain percentage of all cultivated lands?

Mrs. GERISCH. I do not feel that I am in a position in an overall picture to mention that, so far as the entire United States is concerned, but certainly through survey and the like I should think that a great deal of consideration and thought would be given as to whether these diverted acres be a certain percentage of the farm, if that will do the trick, or the allotment on flexible price supports, the amount taken out of acreage by flexible price supports be put into diverted acres or be put into a soil bank, rather, whichever would accomplish what we are looking for, which is reduced production.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the proposal, of course, of many of the witnesses which we have heard in these hearings.

Would your plan envision the payment of a compensation to the farmer for keeping his acreage out of production?

Mrs. GERISCH. I do not see that.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not see that?

Mrs. GERISCH. I am sorry.

The CHAIRMAN. I just want to get your idea. How would you force him to do it-do you not think that he ought to have a little incentive to be able to do that?

Mrs. GERISCH. I should think if he is on the flexible price support that that would be his contribution toward it for the guaranteed prices for what he raises.

The CHAIRMAN. We have had a lot of witnesses testify that the lower the price the more the farm produces in order to make both ends meet. We have had any number of witnesses testify that the lower the price the more they want to expand and produce, so as to make both ends meet. For instance, we heard some witnesses in the West that used the diverted acres of wheat to plant sorghums and to plant barley. That was in competition with farmers who made a living out of planting barley for chicken feed and poultry feed and for cattle and other uses.

Mrs. GERISCH. Did they come under the allotment that the Government allowed for price support?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; they were allotted a limited number of acres for wheat and diverted.

Mrs. GERISCH. They should not be permitted to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. I know, that is the cross-compliance. That is one thing that we will have to deal with in trying to arrive at a solution to the problem. As I stated last night, it may be that unless we can get a formula to meet this cross-compliance proposition of not being permitted, in other words, a wheatgrower, from using his diverted acres to plant a commodity that compete with one already in trouble, that may mean the difference between whether we will get a law or not. Mrs. GERISCH. That is what I was trying to bring out. Perhaps I did not.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought that we could get some ideas how to do it. That is what we are concerned with. We know the problem is there. The question, I believe to be is how to solve it.

Mrs. GERISCH. The Government tells the farmer how many acres he is permitted to plant, does it not, on the price-supported acreage? The CHAIRMAN. Whenever there are acreage allotments, the farmer votes them. If two-thirds voted, it applies to everybody. It is in the law that the farmers themselves vote for it. It does not operate without submitting the matter to the farmers.

Mrs. GERISCH. The thing that comes to my mind, and I tried to make it quite clear, is that price support does not cover every farmer. The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mrs. GERISCH. It affects every farmer.

The CHAIRMAN. You have rigid price supports, that is, you had, and soon you will have flexible, unless somehting is done. You have a flexible price support for everything else under the law, from 0 to 100 percent if the Secretary of Agriculture puts it on.

Mrs. GERISCH. And to my way of thinking the other 25 percent should come under the flexible-price support.

The CHAIRMAN. It would come under it, but the only difference is that the producers of grain and the producers of tung oil and of a few other commodities, they flex from 0 to 100, whereas in the case of tungoil they flex from 60 to 100, and wheat and corn and others who flex from 75 to 100, just the same as in the case of dairy products. Mrs. GERISCH. Yes, but the six commodities are rigid price supports; are they not?

The CHAIRMAN. Not at present.

Mrs. GERISCH. That is anticipated? To my way of thinking, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I would like flexible price supports, to my way of thinking, for all of the commodities.

The CHAIRMAN. With a floor of so much, would you say?

Mrs. GERISCH. I do not know. I have not given it serious enough consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. Let us go down the line and see how that would work. A lot of complaints are made now by quite a few producers of barley. They are flexed, but from 0 to 90. Would you want to put a floor under, the same as you want for milk, which is now the case? Would you want the same thing for beans, flaxseed, fruit? They are produced, too, you know. And hops, naval stores?

Mrs. GERISCH. Did I not understand you to say they are all under flexible supports?

The CHAIRMAN. From 0 to 90, but you have some that have a floor, of 60, others of 75; would you want to raise those to the same or let it be from 0 up to 100?

Mrs. GERISCH. Let us floor them all.

The CHAIRMAN. You would want to put wheat, everybody from zero up to that; is that your idea?

Mrs. GERISCH. You are confusing me, because I do not follow it. The CHAIRMAN. I do not mean to do that.

Mrs. GERISCH. I am sorry, I cannot think along your lines. I cannot get it.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say that under the law as it now stands. supports for every commodity can be flexed. In order to reduce production, the Secretary has a right to start at zero up to 100 if he wants to on some commodities. He can go up to 110 if he wants to, if the production is needed in our economy of that crop. There are some such, tung oil, cotton, wheat, corn, that cannot flex below 75 percent. Would you want to put all of the others in that same category or would you want to let them all flex from zero up to 100?

Mrs. GERISCH. I do not know. I have not thought it through. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? If not, thank you.

We have reached the lunch hour. It is now 12:15. We will recess, to be back here at 1: 15.

We stand in recess until 1: 15 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p. m., the committee recessed until 1:15 p. m. this day.

AFTER RECESS

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

Our first witness is Mr. Howard Eastman. You may give us your name in full, please, and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF HOWARD EASTMAN, VERMONT CERTIFIED SEED & POTATO GROWERS ASSOCIATION, HARDWICK, VT.

Mr. EASTMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Howard Eastman, and I am a farmer from Hardwick, Vt., and a member of the Vermont Certified Seed & Potato Growers Association, which represents about 95 percent of the commercial potato producers in Vermont. The potato growers have drafted the following statement relative to what we feel the Congress should do for agriculture in the United States.

Some of those recommendations have been covered, but I think that we are in disagreement with some of them, so probably I had better read them. There are only two pages.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish that you would. What is your market, to the northeast here?

Mr. EASTMAN. Primarily our market is within the State. We are a deficit potato-producing State, that is, in other words, we consume more than we produce.

The CHAIRMAN. In Vermont?

Mr. EASTMAN. Here in Vermont. So, perhaps, it makes our situation somewhat peculiar to that, for instance, of our neighbor, Maine. We have also growers who grow a considerable amount of certified seed. Of course, the bulk of it is exported primarily south for seed.

1. PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAMS

The Federal Government should withdraw from the operation of handling agricultural commodities. The entire price-support program should be removed in an orderly fashion and as soon as practical.

In the event that price supports are continued then the program should be geared to low flexible price supports. Any diverted acreage which may be taken out of production under Federal control programs should be restricted to the production of crops or products which will not be sold or enter into commercial channels in any form whatsoever.

If a surplus commodity purchasing program is continued it should be conducted in such a manner as to assure that the higher quality produce reaches the consumer.

2. MARKETING AGREEMENT

We are not opposed to the present law relative to marketing agreements on an area basis, but these laws should be strictly enforced where in effect.

3. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The present program of potato breeding should be expanded and stepped up toward the development of a high-quality potato which could be readily produced by modern production methods. A broader

study of adaptability of potato varieties to various potato growing areas is needed.

More research is needed on potato marketing along the lines of effective mercantile methods; including effective advertising, consumer preference and additional uses for potatoes in other forms of consumption.

4. INSECT AND DISEASE CONTROL

The present research program on insect and disease control in potatoes should be continued.

The possibility of eradicating various insects and diseases has been demonstrated in the past. The golden nematode is a serious threat to the existence of the potato industry in the United States, and we feel that the present golden nematode program should be stepped up and every reasonable effort made to eradicate the golden nematode from the United States. A similar program is recommended for the potato-rot nematode.

5. CONSERVATION

We recommend that a study of the present conservation program be made and that reclamation of land be halted in instances where such reclaimed land will be put into production of agricultural products where surpluses already exist.

6. ICC AND TRIP LEASING

In view of the present trend toward monopoly on the part of trucking enterprises in handling and transporting agricultural commodities we urge that Congress pass Senate bill 898, which provides for the practice of trip leasing for the purpose of permitting the movement of agricultural produce and supplies by independent motor carrier as an efficient and practical business expedient.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Are there any questions?

Senator HOLLAND. Yes, sir. I notice that your section on marketing agreements says that you favor marketing agreements on a regional basis.

Mr. EASTMAN. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. Do you mean on a regional basis only?

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.

Senator HOLLAND. Are you in the New England marketing agreement, that is, excluding Maine, in the New England potato market?

Mr. EASTMAN. We operate under the no-marketing agreement at this time. We have in the past operated under a marketing agreement which was very lax, I think handled that way. I think it was in connection with some of the tail end of the support program, and we do not feel in our immediate area in general the marketing agreement fits our needs. We have no objections to those who live in areas where they feel they need them. I think the reason for that is because, as I stated before, we are a deficit producing area.

Senator HOLLAND. How many members does your organization have?

Mr. EASTMAN. Our secretary is in the room. answer that question. He told me a few minutes is about 2,000 acres.

He might be able to that our acreage

ago