to have said anything. I think you boys know the story a lot better than I do, and I surely do thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Boles.

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Boles, before you go I want personally to thank you for what I consider to be very fine testimony. I said to your Senator, Senator Schoeppel, over here, "This man has written his own testimony, and he knows what he is talking about."

This is good, solid, substantial material.

I noticed a chart, Mr. Chairman, the other day in the Newsweek magazine on cost-of-living index which I thought was quite informative. It showed what had been happening in the same 3 years, 1953, 1954, and 1955, and the cost-of-living index has been rather stable, except the only reason it has stayed that way is because of what Mr. Boles portrays: The agricultural products have dropped down so much that it has absorbed the increase in the other products and the other items of the cost of living.

So you have got a cost-of-living index throughout the country that is relatively stable, but at the expense of a particular group.

Now, that has a high significance. There are many contracts between labor unions and management that are based on the cost-ofliving index. So when Mr. Curtice, of General Motors, praises the present farm program, he is doing it with great enthusiasm, because as long as the UAW cannot claim a cost-of-living increase under that 5-year contract that they got with General Motors, General Motors does not have to pay any more wages.

Mr. BOLES. That is true.

Senator HUMPHREY. So, so long as the total cost-of-living index stays down, at your expense, the wage package in that particular plant does not go up. And that is exactly what has happened.

Mr. BOLES. We cannot stand it much longer, unless the insurance company has got a lot more money than I think they have. Senator HUMPHREY. They have a lot of money.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Is Mr. Moore present?

Have a seat, Mr. Moore.

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Chairman, I have to leave, and I wanted to make a formal request before I leave, if you do not mind. It will just take me a moment.

I want to ask you, sir, as the chairman, to instruct our staff to get some explanation from the Secretary on what is going on in this porkpurchase program. You may recall that the Secretary assured the committee that he was pushing this program of pork buying and distribution and that it was being stepped up as fast as the outlets could be obtained.

Just about 2 or 3 days ago, I received information to the effect that relief agencies eligible to receive the pork under the existing law have been unable to get it. They have been turned down, and been informed that none will be available until in April.

I would like to have the staff find out why this is.

Furthermore, I would like to know why it is that at the first bids that were taken for the purchase of pork, there seemed to be a little competitive bidding, and that at the subsequent bids which have been taken, all bids are alike, and that every time, the processors' bid goes

up each time, and the price of pork to the farmer goes down each time.

Now, I think this necessitates an explanation. I feel it is something that needs to be definitely looked into.

Now, I will give you the specific example that came to my attention 2 days ago. It is Polk County, Iowa. Apparently the people from there saw other people, too, here on the Hill. But I happen to have an acquaintanceship in that particular county, and one of the officers of the relief agency, the Welfare Board of Polk County, Iowa, came to me and indicated that he had tried to obtain pork products for their needy people, and was told that there would not be any available until in April.

Now, I want to know what the delay is, and I want to know why the Government of the United States is paying more for pork products each time it buys them, while the farmer gets less for pork when he sells it in the stockyard.

This has been exactly what some of us have been worried about, and I do not like the explanations we are getting from the Department.

The CHAIRMAN. We will follow your suggestion, Senator. In addition to that, I have been asked also to inquire as to the sale of the 1 million bales of cotton that were supposed to have been sold in January. So we will put both requests in, and I hope to get an

answer soon.

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Moore. Will you give us your name and occupation, please?

Mr. MOORE. Frank Moore. I am a farmer, from Plainview, Tex. This is Mr. LaFont, a farmer, and adviser to the association, also from Plainview, Tex.

The CHAIRMAN. What is his full name?

Mr. MOORE. Harold M. LaFont.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Moore. Proceed, sir.

STATEMENTS OF FRANK MOORE AND HAROLD M. LAFONT, FEED GRAIN PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, PLAINVIEW, TEX.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, we appreciate the committing giving us, as actual farmers, this opportunity to present our views on a workable farm plan.

We represent the Feed Grain Producers Association, with headquarters at Bushland, Tex., and an organization of farmers of eastern New Mexico, western Oklahoma, and the north and south plains of

Texas.

Our association was formed at Hereford, Tex., on October 20, 1955. Immediately after its organization, each county group was instructed to formulate their ideas of a change in the present farm program to make it fit the distressed conditions of farming at this time.

Senator THYE. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman mind an interruption at that point?

You formed a new farm association just in 1955?

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir.

Senator THYE. Had you become discouraged with the organizations that were in existence representing the farmers? Or what caused the formation of the new organization?

Mr. MOORE. Well

Senator THYE. I know your problems economically, but I wondered whether you felt that through your new organization you could be more effective in trying to speak for yourself as a producer in that geographical area, or had you become discouraged with representation that was in existence?

Mr. MOORE. We felt that just by having one commodity group, we would be more effective.

Senator THYE. I see. So it was strictly a commodity question rather than an area or general farm economic question?

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir.

Senator THYE. You then were dealing with what kind of grain, Mr. MOORE. Milo maize.

Senator THYE. Milo maize. So you confined yourself specifically to that crop?

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir.

Senator THYE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MOORE. Out of those plans submitted, and from those plans submitted, our association is making this recommendation.

The gradual decrease of the borrowing power of our farmers from banks, depressed farm prices, and a gradual increase in the cost of living and farming operations have all contributed to a squeeze on the farm situation to a point where it is becoming more unbearable each day.

Our proposed plan has been submitted to our county organizations in 15 counties on the North and South Plains of Texas, and the counties of our association in New Mexico and Oklahoma, and it has received unanimous approval of all farmers present at each county meeting. We do not present this proposed plan as a complete solution to all farm problems and the disposition of surpluses of farm commodities, but we believe this program will go a long way in helping to solve the situation in which we find ourselves.

SUGGESTED FARM PROGRAMS, FEED GRAIN PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION

1. Any one farm not be permitted to plant more than approximately 85 percent of total cultivated acres in price-supporting crops, leaving approximately 15 percent in layout or soil-bank acreage. We had been planting up to 100 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. What did you do with that 15 percent? Just plant soil-conservation grasses?

Mr. LAFONT. He will get to that in a minute.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. MOORE. (a) No payment will be received by farmer for soilbank acreage.

(b) No grazing or cash crop on soil-bank acreage. He can either summer-fallow or put legumes on it.

(c) The soil-bank acreage must be rotated yearly.

Senator THYE. Do you mind an interruption at that point? What kind of legume can you plant in that area and be certain of a catch, because this is quite dry area, and if you have a diversion and you want it seeded down to grass or legumes, what kind of grass could you plant in that area?

Mr. MOORE. We are in an irrigated area

Senator THYE. Oh, you are irrigation?

Mr. MOORE (Continuing). And dry-land area.

Senator THYE. I meant dry land. My question was directed to dry land, and not irrigation.

Mr. MOORE. That is the reason why we have the summer fallow in there. It is doubtful whether you could come in with a legume or not, but in our irrigated area, we could come in with peas and clover and the rest of them.

Senator THYE. My question was not directed to irrigation. I was directing it to the dry-land question.

Mr. MOORE. There are very few years when you can use legumes very well on dry land.

Senator THYE. I did not think you could. That is why I asked the question.

Mr. MOORE. (d) Soil-bank percentage can be increased or decreased yearly according to supply feed grains. In other words, 15 percent is not a magic figure. The Department of Agriculture could change it. according to the supply of feed grains.

2. Cross compliance shall be in effect. If the farmer is not in compliance on his layout or any other phase of his farming, he is completely out of compliance and would not be eligible for the farm loan and would be penalized.

(a) A farmer will be permitted to plant feed grains in case of drought, hail, or flood on basic crops acreage. In that way, we could take care of our own hardship cases.

(b) Marketing quotas and acreage allotments will not be used on feed grains, as soil bank automatically reduces acreage.

3. Program voluntary, in that it must be approved by referendum not later than May 1 each year, and should be as early as possible, and then it would be mandatory after approved.

4. In exchange for no pay on soil bank or layout land, farmers will receive 90 percent of parity for presently price-supported crops. That is basic and nonbasic crops.

The CHAIRMAN. Which are the nonbasics?

Mr. MOORE. That would be oats, barley, rye, and grain sorghums.
The CHAIRMAN. Strictly grain?

Mr. MOORE. Sir?

The CHAIRMAN. Strictly grain?
Mr. MOORE. Soybeans and flax.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. MOORE. 5. Small farms will receive 90 percent of parity without layout or soil-bank compliance. But we think that the large farmers should carry the load of the layout and the small farmer would only have to comply with his basic acreage allotments in order to be eligible. Senator SCHOEPPEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask at that point, what would you consider a small farm to be here? That is, the average. I will not hold you to an exact figure.

Mr. MOORE. We would leave it up to the Department of Agriculture, or to you, with this thought in mind. If you get it too large, it would not lay out as many acres, and if you get it too large, it would be awfully difficult to decrease the size of a small farm. Possibly 20 acres would be a small farm.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean, irrigated land?

Mr. MOORE. No; just straight across, irrigated and dry land, both. The CHAIRMAN. In the same area?

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir; dry land or irrigated.

The CHAIRMAN. You could produce so much more on irrigated land, though.

Mr. MOORE. In dryland sections, you do not have 20-acre farms. Senator THYE. No; I did not think you did. You would need that to park your machinery on.

The CHAIRMAN. They are all big?

Mr. MOORE. Where you have heavy rainfall and plenty of water, that is the only place you have small farms that I know of.

Senator THYE. What would be the average of your dryland farming out there, about the average size?

Mr. MOORE. It is hard to make a living on a section. I would possibly say they were larger than a section, because it is awfully difficult to make a living on 640 acre under dryland conditions.

Senator THYE. You would have a few cattle, would you not, as a general thing?

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir; 95 percent of them would.

Senator THYE. And then you would have to have how many acres for one cow if you were pasturing? You, of course, would pasture some winter wheat there. But figuring your dryland summer pasture, how many acres would you figure on a cow?

Mr. MOORE. Well, usually they put the cows down around a lake where there is a little water, and as the water dries back, they maybe just have a few cows, 2 or 3 cows.

Senator THYE. Yes. But you do not have too many lakes around there.

Mr. MOORE. Service lakes.

Mr. LAFONT. Yes; we have lots of them.

Mr. MOORE. We have at least 1 for every section, and probably 1 on practically every quarter.

Senator THYE. But in the main, about how many acres of land would you figure that you would have to have, regardless of what kind of lake or whatever you might have on the land? How many acres do you plan per head for the summer grazing? Of course, in the wintertime you are back down on your winter wheat, you see, and grazing that.

Mr. MOORE. You can hardly answer that because some years it rains and it doesn't take very many acres, and you have in other years Senator THYE. I know that. It is probably laboring the point. Mr. Chairman, it is all right.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. MOORE. We have the illustrations with the 100-acre farms in cultivation, and we do not mean to change the cotton allotment or wheat allotment or any of the basic allotments. They can be changed inside of this program without affecting it.

In the first one, you have a 30-acre cotton allotment, and up to now you would have been planting 70 acres of feed grain. But with this 15 percent layout, you would only be planting 55 acres in feed grain. In the second illustration, we will say that the farmer has 25 acres of cotton and he has a 15-acre wheat allotment. He has been planting 60 acres of feed grain, and under this he would be planting only 15 acres, which would decrease his feed grain 25 percent.