Senator THYE. I would say to my colleague, and I say this in all good nature, the only difference is this: There is not the possibility of smashing up that air-conditioning unit.

I had a man just here in December who failed to set the brakes on the tractor and it started rolling down the hill and hit a tree. When I got through, it cost me $136 to fix up the front end of that tractor. Senator HUMPHREY. You have insurance on that.

Senator THYE. A man with a combine can pick up a good sizable rock with the pickup and wreck the whole front end of the combine. And the man that owns the equipment would probably be sitting there with it wrecked and with no sales value to it. That is the difference.

You and I cannot escape that, and that is what we are faced with on these chattels, farm machinery, because so many things can happen in a matter of seconds which would absolutely ruin the value of that chattel.

Suppose the tractor was left without oil in it, for a matter of an hour. The tractor motor is shot. That is what is involved.

ASSISTANCE TO LOWER INCOME FARMERS

Governor FREEMAN (continuing):

Assistance must be given to the lower economic level of farm groups-either to provide them with the help they need to become better farmers or to ease the transition to some other occupation. Encouragement of decentralized location of industry, in areas where labor from the farm can be used, has proved beneficial to all concerned in Minnesota, and we are continuing to push this development. Training programs and guidance in rural high schools could ease transition from farms where this is necessary. Financial aid, either for improving agricultural operations or for transferring to another field would help.

In Minnesota we are trying to decentralize industry in many areas. I am going over to testify before the Labor Committee when I leave here in connection with the so-called depressed areas bill and I think where certain areas are not economic for agriculture-we have some in Minnesota, intelligent assistance in making some of those transitions should be made, and not just force people out as best they can.

INCREASED CONSUMPTION

Measures should be taken to achieve the optimum consumption of agricultural products. This should include an expanded school lunch program. In Minnesota our school lunch program is working so effectively that the present allotment will be exhausted by the end of February 1956, and an additional allotment is needed if the program is to continue. I believe we are all agreed that supplying more milk for our children is one of the most constructive parts of our program.

Senator AIKEN. We have 12 States that will be out of money before February 1 and will have to discontinue their milk program. We have at least half of the States out of money to continue the brucellosis program. I hope we can get those two matters taken care of because if there is once a lapse in the program, they will not likely start it up again this year.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand the House is going to send us a bill. Senator AIKEN. The House, I am sure, has a favorable report on the school milk bill. I am sure you will have one tomorrow on the brucellosis bill. Those are the two items that are important, that are critical right now.

Governor FREEMAN. We should also increase consumption by a food stamp plan to provide better nutrition for the millions of American families whose incomes are not now sufficient to provide them with adequate nutrition.

Twelve million families with income of less than $2,000 a year cannot purchase enough good food to meet American standards. In Minnesota alone, our 52,000 people on old-age assistance, the 20,800 receiving aid to dependent children, plus thousands of others who receive various kinds of local assistance and relief, could benefit from such a plan, while helping to eliminate our surpluses.

The food stamp plan provided should have the flexibility which would permit its use to promote the consumption of products which at any time might be in long supply, particularly as applied to perishables. It is interesting and important that perishable foods-dairy products and fresh fruits and vegetables are among those most needed by those whose diets are nutritionally deficient because of insufficient income.

Senator AIKEN. At the time I introduced that bill the first time, and you have described it pretty well, there were about 30 million people in the country living on less than $1,400 per family per year. I expect there are about the same number of people getting by on less than $2,000 today.

Governor FREEMAN. That is correct.

Senator AIKEN. About 30 million. They would use up the surplus pretty fast if they had a chance.

Senator ANDERSON. Can I say that I happened to be reading over some testimony that I presented to this very committee in 1947, in which I suggested that this country would be in difficulty if it did not establish what I called a floor under consumption, and I referred specifically to the food stamp plan of Senator Aiken. I thought we ought to pass that. I thought we ought to pass the expansion of the school-lunch program, so they would be available in case surpluses began to build up and could be used as a means of holding down these surpluses.

And I am glad to see you now again urging that something of that nature be available because if it could be used I think it would be very, very beneficial indeed.

Senator AIKEN. When surpluses build up, or employment starts down, the foot allotment program would immediately start to work on both ends.

Senator HUMPHREY. That is right.

Senator ANDERSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Governor FREEMAN. A program for increased consumption should also include leadership in formulating and carrying out international programs for the use of food as an instrument for peace and good will abroad.

CONSERVATION OF SOIL AND FERTILITY

Programs for the preservation and restoration of our soil and water resource potential should be undertaken, and those that exist should be expanded. We should strengthen the Soil Conservation Service and our programs for forestry management and flood control.

A sound and effective program for taking acreage out of production should be adopted. Any soil-bank program, however, should be carefully designed to consider the nature of the soil which ought to be "banked," to operate equitably in all areas and among all farmers, and to be really effective in acocmplishing desired ends.

A program, for example, such as the one now proposed with regard to land used to produce basic commodities, would affect in Minnesota only the acreage now devoted to corn and wheat, and would be of value to only a very small proportion of the farmers in Minnesta, Furthermore, if I may add, somebody called my office and dictated just the day before I left, a specific illustration from a farm in southern Minnesota where they took the equivalent of what would come out on soil bank and put in more fertilizer and ended up producing substantially more than they did before they put the acres out. Senator ANDERSON. Would you mind filing that with the committee, adding it to your testimony at this point?

Governor FREEMAN. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. You can multiply that example by thousands all over the country. We will put that in the record.

Governor FREEMAN. I think I will keep that, instead. Thank you Senator. I may want to use that.

FARM COOPERATIVES

Constructive encouragement of farm cooperatives, a policy which has been written into Federal law since 1929, should be continued and expanded. Farmers have already done much to improve their own financial position through cooperative organization, and can do much more.

RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTATION

Scientific and technological research, to develop new and better products and particularly new uses for agricultural products, should be constantly emphasized.

IMPORTANCE OF ADMINISTRATION

No Government program can be carried out effectively to achieve the purposes for which it was enacted unless it is administered by personnel who believe in those purposes and are determined to carry out the intent of the law.

This is particularly true with regard to an agricultural program designed to meet the needs of a vast area under changing conditions, because such a program cannot be spelled out in rigid detail, but must rather provide for variations to meet diverse and unpredictable situations.

I believe that the programs in effect today could have been of greater benefit to our farmers had they been administered more thoroughly in line with the intent of the law.

I have already referred to the decreased effectiveness of the local farmer-committee program. Administrative officials have not always used the authority they have to the greatest benefit of the farmers.

In the current pork purchase program, for example, perhaps the processors and packers have benefited by the expenditure of $85 million, but it has not helped the price that farmers received for their hogs.

Had such expenditures been made to farmers, for example, as premium payments for marketing lean hogs of less weight, there would have been less pork on the market and the benefit would have been to the farmers themselves. When administrative officials in charge of a program express their disapproval of the purposes of the program itself, there is little reason to hope that the program will succeed.

I would therefore urge you to write into the law you will enact, as specifically as you can, a statement of the intent and purposes to be achieved, and require that it be administered in a manner that carries out those intents and purposes.

FARM PROBLEM CAN AND MUST BE SOLVED

We cannot afford a defeatist or a laissez-faire attitude toward our farm problem. We in America are blessed with a democratic government. We ought not to be afraid to use it. We must not be caught in blind prejudices that prevent action by means of representative government, when only by such means can solutions be found and implemented.

We can solve the serious agricultural problem which faces us today if we adopt a program based on a philosophy of plenty, which recognizes the needs of the future, which has the imagination and the courage to meet the challenge of bringing to our own people-and to the world-the possibilities of plenty that scientific and technological progress make possible.

I believe that you can evolve a constructive, farsighted program to the benefit of America and the world. It has been a great privilege for me to try to make some contribution to your efforts to that end. (The prepared supplemental statement of Governor Freeman is as follows:)

MOVEMENT OF MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS

Your committee is aware of the importance of dairying to the economy and people of Minnesota. In 1954, dairying accounted for $233 million, or almost onefifth of all cash farm income in Minnesota. Manifestly, any serious dislocation of that basic industry is a major concern to everyone in Minnesota.

The position of Minnesota dairying in the Nation's agriculture makes the problems of Minnesota dairying a matter of importance to the national interest. The State's importance in the manufacture of dairy products is indicated by its relative positions as the Nation's largest producer of butter, second in production of nonfat dry milk solids, and third in its production of cheese. Minnesota produces nearly one-fifth of the country's nonfat dry milk solids for human consumption, and 6 percent of all the cheese.

Over a period of many years, certain artificial barriers to the free movement of milk and milk products have developed. In 1953, the Minnesota Legislature, by House Concurrent Resolution No. 21, created an interim commission to study and evaluate Minnesota laws dealing with the production, processing, marketing, and sale of agricultural products including dairy products. That commission was specifically directed to include in its study "an investigation of the laws of other States and of the United States," and to "submit its report and recommenda

tions to the legislature not later than January 15, 1955." In its report, that interim commission recommended that

"The Minnesota Legislature adopt a resolution urging the Congress and the United States Public Health Service to further develop requirements for interstate transportation of dairy products and to eliminate artificial trade barriers." On March 7, 1955, the Minnesota Legislature resolved that "the President and the Congress of the United States be requested to do all in their power to further extend and develop the use of the United States Public Health Service Milk Sanitation Code and to insure the unrestricted interstate movement of dairy products whose quality conforms to the standard of that code." And that “we request Congress to amend the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 to provide that prices of all milk sold under provisions of Federal market orders must be related to the general level of manufacturing milk prices; and to provide that prices of class 1 milk shall be revised downward when production in the milkshed embraced within each Federal order shall be in excess of 115 percent of class 1 requirements in the low season of production; and to provide further for the elimination from such orders of all provisions designed to discourage, or which have the effect of burdening and obstructing shipments of milk or cream from any production area in the United States to any marketing area regulated by a Federal milk order" (Laws 1955, Resolution No. 4, p. 1597). Finally, the Minnesota Legislature enacted Laws 1955, chapter 840 (approved, April 25, 1955), by which the Minnesota attorney general was authorized to study the free movement of milk and dairy products in interstate commerce, and to present the results of such studies to the legislative and executive agencies of the Federal Government or other States, and to contest statutes, ordinances, regulations, and other barriers which restrict the sale in other States of Minnesota milk and dairy products.

The problems to which I now direct your attention have developed a magnitude and urgency which make them a major concern of both the legislative and executive branches of our State government and of all the people of Minnesota.

1. Sanitary regulations

Since 1856, the myriad of State and local jurisdictions in the United States have been enacting laws and ordinances to protect the sanitary quality of milk. We emphasize that we do not suggest that the Congress do anything which would lower the actual safeguards of the public health. The susceptibility of milk to contamination, its excellence as a medium for the growth of bacteria. and the widespread use of milk as a principal item of diet, all require that the sanitary quality of milk be fully protected.

We do suggest, however, that the multiplicity of local regulations and the extreme disparity between their different requirements demonstrates that many of them cannot be justified on a public health basis. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture has referred to "the chaos resulting from this uncertainty over the exact public health significance of any given bacteria count." One study of the sanitary milk legislation of 84 large cities disclosed that the ordinances of 9 cities did not specify any standard at all, while the other 75 city ordinances ranged all the way from 25,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter or less for milk for pasteurization in 8 of those cities to 6 cities which had standards of over 300,000.

The wide and sometimes weird variations in the requirements for lighting and ventilating milking barns, the specifications for materials and construction of barns and milkhouses, and the different prescribed locations of barns, milkhouses, cowyards, and manure storage render it impossible for many dairy farmers to comply with the ordinances of more than a single market. Most sanitary codes require farm inspections. The most common requirement is 1 or 2 inspections per year, but the range is all the way from 1 to 6 visits anually. Many cities require the sampling of milk at periodic intervals, but the number of samples required ranges all the way from 4 to 24 each year, and no sampling at all is required in other municipalities.

Obviously, such extreme variations in requirements cannot possibly be justified by considerations of public health. It is an open secret that many so-called health ordinances which obstruct the free flow of milk are based upon economie considerations rather than public health reasons. The interstate problem created by such unduly restrictive requirements is not new, but its adverse effect has been intensified by the development of techniques and facilities for the longdistance movement of fluid milk in bulk. Under stress of wartime stortages, it was not at all uncommon for fresh, fluid Minnesota milk to be shipped all the