You are all aware of the firm stand heretofore taken before this committee and reiterated many, many times by our association and by every other established organization of beef cattle producers.

We have always opposed price supports for beef cattle. We still oppose such supports and unless the character of cowmen undergoes a complete change which is not going to happen-we will always oppose any and all programs that would establish price supports for beef cattle. Our reasons for our position have often been stated to you. It would, therefore, be unnecessary consumption of time to repeat them now.

My organization and I personally wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to express our views.

You have had some testimony here from other witnesses again advocating to you that the Congress enact a law providing for price supports, some at 100 percent of parity, some of them up to 90, on all agricultural products including livestock, cattle.

I remind you gentlemen that you have heard our industry speak through our different organizations many, many times. We have always opposed price supports for livestock, for the beef cattle industry. We still oppose it. I am very confident we will always continue to oppose price supports for the beef cattle industry.

I can't help but say this as I pass along: That I have the greatest admiration and a lot of sympathy for you men sitting on this committee. I have been listening all week to the various different commodities and industries coming in here and telling you their troubles and you have got to be as versatile as Lorenzo ever was; you have to know all about every kind of commodity.

That is a little bit difficult in itself and I am sure you gentlemen elected to the position you are in are bound to know it, but in addition to knowing all of that, I have reached this conclusion: That these commodities that have price supports are the ones that are in the worst fix of all.

I think our position, aside from other angles-our position against price supports for our industry is justified by listening to the story of the other commodities that are in trouble. That is one addition that I want to add to our other.

Senator SCOTT. I would like to ask the judge, since he has heard all of these discussions here and I have not myself because I have been on other subcommittees, what he thinks of the excise tax on these different products to support rather than excise tax like you have got on tobacco now-rather than burden the Treasury with this.

Mr. MONTAGUE. I don't believe I have heard anybody discuss that angle here this week.

Senator Scort. I think some gentleman, Mr. Thatcher, I believe, discussed it.

Mr. MONTAGUE. That was the one that I didn't hear.

You mean to make each industry be self-supporting in its own supports and raising the money for its own supports?

Senator SCOTT. That is right.

Mr. MONTAGUE. I have always taken this position, that I do not know enough about other commodities outside of cattle to have any definite ideas about that and I just think it would be a little bit presumptuous on my part to express any opinion.

Whether I have a haphazard opinion or not, I never express an opinion with reference to the price supports with reference to other commodities. That is their business, and I don't know anything about

it.

Senator THYE. You are a wise man.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further question?

We thank you and your entire statement will be made a part of the record.

(The statement is as follows :)

My name is Joe G. Montague and I reside in Fort Worth, Tex., my office being in the Fair Building in that city. I am attorney for the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers' Association, which is an organization of beef cattle producers with its office also in Fort Worth, Tex.

This statement is made with reference to S. 2949 and the committee print of January 17, 1956. It is my impression that your committee is considering the two referred to instruments, anticipating the final committee production of an agricultural bill for 1956.

My statement will be very brief as there are only two points with reference to this agricultural legislation now being considered by you that I would like to comment upon at this time.

I. THE SOIL BANK

Since the proposal for the establishment of a soil bank or acreage reserve deals almost exclusively with cultivated lands-farms-we do not feel it to be appropriation for us to either recommend or oppose this suggested plan. But, because our beef-cattle industry may be very directly affected by the adoption of the program unless safeguards are afforded us, we do want to stress the point that such safeguards must be practical and must be effective.

When the idea of a soil bank was first developed and for a considerable length of time thereafter the statements made by officials of the Government and by many others advocating the plan all suggested that this diverted acreage should be planted to grass and other forage and used for livestock grazing. These statements aroused our keen interest and inspired me to write a letter to Secretary Benson outlining our views on this subject. Because that letter expressed our views rather fully and is a part of the departmental record, I now quote it to you:

Hon. EZRA T. BENSON

Secretary of Agriculture,

WASHINGTON, D. C., November 1, 1955.

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: This letter follows a conversation we had this morning in which the subject discussed was diverted acreage. You indicated to me that you and your assistants were now studying the problem and that you would like to have a written expression of our ideas on the subject.

By diverted acreage, I mean that land which has been, or which will be. taken out of the production of crops that have price supports under the law, such acreage being the amount in excess of the legal limitation fixed in the administration of the price support law. This diverted acreage cannot be used to produce any of the supported commodities.

So the question arises, For what should this diverted acreage be used? From the standpoint of the beef-cattle producers, and I am sure the same applies to dairy-cattle producers although I do not speak for the dairy industry, some unfortunate statements have been made concerning the use to which this diverted acreage should be turned. These statements, some of them by persons in high official position, have been to the effect that such diverted acreage should be planted to forage, grass, and legumes and used for grazing livestock, especially cattle.

Such statements are of grave concern to us.

As you know, the beef-cattle industry has taken a terrific beating during the last few years. Prices today are very much lower than they were and eattle numbers have ben steadily and rapidly increasing. During the past 3 years cattle numbers have risen from 87,844,000 on January 1, 1952, to 95,483,000, the present reported number. At the same time, the average live-weight price

on beef cattle has decreased from the January 1, 1952, price of $27.30 to $15.30 per hundredweight, the present reported average price.

On January 1, 1952, cattle were selling at 137 percent of the calculated parity. Today they are selling at 73 percent of such parity.

The inventory value of all cattle on January 1, 1952, was $15,722,846,000. On January 1, 1955, the inventory value was $8,478,697,000. In this same period of time there was an increase in cattle numbers of 7,589,000.

The conclusion to be drawn from these statistics is clear. During the 3-year period of from January 1, 1952, to January 1, 1955, cattlemen not only suffered an inventory loss of $7,244,149,000, but, in the same time, have produced 7,589,000 head of cattle for nothing.

Nevertheless, cattlemen have taken all this with consistent courage and remarkable perseverance. They have never weakened in their refusal to seek or even accept a system of price supports for cattle. And cattlemen will never change in their attitude to this proposition. They wish to continue to operate on a natural market, without governmental control and without governmental intrusion into their business. That is the nature of the cowman.

These statements are considered appropriate in a discussion of the divertedacreage problem because there is grave danger that the handling of that problem may develop into just such an intrusion into the cattle business by the Government as has long been and is now feared by cowmen.

The total of diverted acreage is reported as being approximately 30 million acres. Such land is already improved acreage. It is cultivated land, generally capable of far greater production than ordinary rangeland. Much of this acreage would support a cow to the acre. I do not believe it would be an exaggeration to

state that the 30 million acres of diverted land would carry and support at least 10 million cows.

And if the owners of this diverted land follow the advice and suggestions that have been made to them and run cattle on this land, it is believed that they would use cows and produce and market calves.

This would aggravate an already dangerous situation. It would add 10 million head to the cow numbers in this country and at least 8 million head to the annual increase in total cattle numbers. And we already have more than an adequate cattle population. Our present cattle population is more than sufficient to supply the demand. In fact, there have been numerous recommendations made to the industry to reduce cattle numbers.

From our economic standpoint the cattle industry can not stand the increase in numbers that would follow the acceptance of the recommendations that have been made to the owners of diverted acreage. An uneconomical surplus would result and that would be disastrous to the industry with serious repercussions throughout the whole economic structure of this country. This is true because the cattle industry is so basic and so tied into the national pattern that such a disaster would not be confined to just the cattle industry.

And it would be grossly unfair to all those people who are now in the cattle business and who have so been for many years, to now allow this diverted acreage, which is the result of an extensive plan of subsidization, to be used in competition with natural grazing and wholly unsubsidized land.

Such an increase in cattle population, especially in cows, could easily develop such a surplus that the Government would be confronted with still another large item in its already troublesome surplus problem. And the industry would be confronted with a dilemma, not of its own making. Unsubsidized cattlemen would either have to go out of business or join the ranks of the subsidized. By handling diverted acreage so that an unwieldy surplus of cattle results, the same situation would be developed in the cattle industry that caused the diversion of acreage from other industries. The problem would just be transposed from one commodity to another. Thus, instead of solving a problem, a new and probably more difficult one would be created.

Cattlemen deserve fairer treatment than this at the hand of their Government. They do not fear competition from each other, but they dread competition with the Government and its subsidy complex.

For these reasons, cattlemen ask you to take another look at this divertedacreage program. And when you do, as I am sure you will, it is sincerely hoped that you will come up with a plan for such land that will not be a hazard to the existing cattle industry and to the economy of the country.

Respectfully,

JOE G. MONTAGUE,

Attorney, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association.

Secretary Benson quickly replied to this letter giving us assurance that he was studying the problem involved and his recommendations made to this committee in his testimony and in S. 2949, which I understand to be the departmental bill, demonstrate that the Secretary is not only aware of the dangers pointed out in the quoted letter, but he advises a course of legislation he believes would avoid such dangerous results. We appreciate the Secretary's attitude when he recommends that, in the event the Congress authorizes the installation of the soil-bank plan, the diverted acreage also called the reserve acreage is not to be used for grazing of livestock.

Our concern now is in how the prohibition against the use of this diverted acreage can be practically enforced. To avoid the dangers pointed out, this prohibition must be in plain and unmistakable language and the method of enforcing it must be set out in the act so that it will be effective.

PRICE SUPPORTS

You have heard testimony from other witnesses recommending the adoption of a price-support program for all agricultural products including beef cattle. None of the witnesses making such recommendations represented beef-cattle producers and did not claim to do so.

You are all aware of the firm stand heretofore taken before this committee and reiterated many, many times by our association and by every other established organization of beef cattle producers. We have always opposed price supports for beef cattle. We still oppose such supports and unless the character of cowmen undergoes a complete change which is not going to happen-we will always oppose any and all programs that would establish price supports for beef cattle. Our reasons for our position have often been stated to you. It would, therefore, be an unnecessary consumption of time to now repeat them. My organization and I personally wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to express our views.

Respectfully,

JOE G. MONTAGUE.

The CHAIRMAN. We will stand in recess until next Monday at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 3 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m., Monday, January 21, 1956.)

PRICE-SUPPORT PROGRAM

MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 1956

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 324, Senate Office Building, Senator Allen J. Ellender (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Ellender, Anderson, Humphrey, Scott, Aiken, Young, Thye, Hickenlooper, and Schoeppel.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

Senator John Stennis of Mississippi has asked to make a short

statement.

Senator, the floor is yours.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN STENNIS, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have a statement here on some major phases of the bill that I would like to include in the record, if I may, and then speak briefly to one particular point that I think cannot be overemphasized. And that is something, gentlemen, to meet our situation with reference to the small, family-size cotton farmer. Particularly, this measure that I want to include in the bill is a national reserve acreage of at least 2 percent, because the pinch of this program is literally driving great numbers of these little fellows off of their own land.

Now, in the change, in the transition we are going through, some of that is natural and should be done, maybe. We are getting along somewhat in industrializing, but my point is that the operation of this program, the very opposite from what it was intended in its spirit in the beginning is liquidating these farms and driving them off their land. It has gotten down to where, under the present allotment law, it reduces them to less than 1 acre in many cases, or less than an acre and a half or less than 2 acres, or less than 3 acres.

Now, you know that a man must have 3 or 4 acres or somewhere in the neighborhood of that to make any appreciable part of his living on the farm. The situation last year was this: Last year, in 1955, there were 55,000 renters that were really driven off the land through the operation of this law. And they are living on land where a man had 10, 15, 20, or 25 acres, up to 100 of cropland. The larger size farm managed with the right attitude can cut down some acreage on all tenants and take care of them, or maybe just let one go. But this little fellow, all in the world he has is this little land that he owns. Maybe