there are great possibilities for further development of export markets for meat and meat products. They are of the opinion that greater appropriations must be made for the promotion of meat and meat products at national and international fairs as is being done for industrial commodities.

The CHAIRMAN. You know, in recent years; that is, in the past 2 years, we have provided a fund of about $3 million, I remember, to start these exhibitions you speak of abroad. That is what you mean? Mr. MCDOUGAL. We were of the opinion that meat and meat products had not had the same proportion

The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course, if we can establish the policy and obtain the buildings, don't you think that the trade itself would furnish the products?

Mr. MCDOUGAL. We feel that it possibly would.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MCDOUGAL. The livestock people are of the strong opinion that Government should sharply expand its beef and other meat purchases for the school lunch and foreign aid program. They believe that a meat purchase program would be only an emergency measure and the Government would not control the industry at any time during the program.

That is the same program as was carried on in 1953.
The CHAIRMAN. And the same one we have now?
Mr. MCDOUGAL. That is right.

THE ROLE OF RESEARCH IN THE PROGRAM

Research has a definite role in any livestock program. Much of the research carried on in past years in the field of livestock and meats has been for the most part to increase the production of livestock. We believe that the time has come for more research in the field of marketing, merchandising, nutrition, packaging, grade standards, cooking, and new uses of the byproducts of livestock.

The stockman feels the consumption of red meats would increase if more research was carried on to find ways to make meat more attractive to the consumer, as well as more research on cookery and palatability. The industry in cooperation with Federal and State Government as well as education and research institutions should increase program of public education as to the nutritional value of meats to the people of the Nation.

GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN RESEARCH

We believe that the Federal and State governments should continue and expand their program in disease, parasitic and predatory animal control as well as their programs in animal nutrition. The stockman would for the Government to provide funds to assist the industry research programs for finding new uses for leather, wool, tallow, and fats and other byproducts of livestock. We believe the Federal and State governments should expand their research programs in the field of marketing, merchandising, and distribution. It is believed by many producers that more knowledge in these fields will be of great value in finding and developing new foreign and domestic markets for meat and meat byproducts.

EFFICIENCY IN PRODUCTION

The livestock producer is continually faced with the problem of reducing his cost of production and continuing research must be carried on to help him achieve the job. The producer is discovering that the more he sells the less money he receives and that the consumer is paying the same or more for the product because of the rigid and rising costs in handling and processing the products en route to the

consumer.

We believe that the Federal and State Governments should enter more fully into research designed to help the producer to reduce his cost of production and marketing in order that the net income be more in line with other segments of our economy.

We appreciate very much the opportunity to present our views on a livestock program.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. McDougal.

Mr. Olaf George, will you state your name for the record?

STATEMENT OF OLAF GEORGE, KANOSH, UTAH

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, my name is Olaf George, from Kanosh, Utah. I am in the sheep business primarily, but also am a farmer and have a lamb feeding business during the winter months.

I have been interested in this price-support program and have attended several meetings at which time it has been discussed thoroughly. Speaking as a representative of the farmers in my area I will say that those farmers who raise wheat feel that it is a good deal because the Government gives them a guaranteed price which is a premium in my particular area in comparison to other crops that are raised there.

I would like to comment for the simple reason that these people are given the opportunity of planting other crops on the diverted acreage that they have, which works a hardship on the balance of our economy in that particular area.

However, it is the general feeling of farm people other than the wheat farmer that if the Government is going to support one crop it should support them all.

Now, we realize that they cannot support them all, but they feel, in fairness to everybody, that if one segment of our industry is going to be supported, then we should have some guaranty, at least, that diverted acres would be put into the crops-let me change that, would not be put into the crops and wreck our particular industry.

We have one very good example in the community I am from where the high cost of wheat has put the chicken men practically out of business.

It is the general feeling, in fact, the farmers voted unanimously in one meeting which I attended that if the Government wasn't going to support all the crops that land called diverted acres should be retired, or some portion thereof.

If the Government is going to be fair to all the people and give us all a guaranteed price we know that this will stimulate the production to the point where eventually we will have to retire some of our acres anyway. It is no more than fair that we ask those lands registered under the price-support program to retire or take out of production some of their diverted acreage.

I believe there should be some kind of support program to keep the bottom from falling completely out from under any particular crop in case of overproduction or a recession condition or whatever it might be. I believe this is a must, if we want to avoid a break in the overall economy of our whole Nation. However, there is only one market for farm produce and anytime Government programs build surpluses those surpluses eventually will tend to weaken the price farmers can expect to get, and have a bad effect in the long run on the price of their commodity.

I think one thing we should keep in mind as farm people is that if the Government has the responsibility of setting the price on our commodity we are in for trouble. If you look at any one commodity raised, those people directly engaged in producing it would be a very small percent of the total population of our Nation, and anytime we as farm people think that a big majority of the people who all use our products are going to tell you and I how much we are going to get and give us a fancy price for it under a guaranteed price support program, I personally think we are kidding ourselves.

I thoroughly believe the more government we can keep out of our farm program, the better off we are going to be in the long run. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Is Mr. de Back present?

Is Mr. Chambers present?

All right, Mr. de Back.

STATEMENT OF PHIL deBACK, PRESIDENT, TOMATO GROWERS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, ISLETON, CALIF.

Mr. DEBACK. Mr. Chairman, and members of the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, I am Phil deBack, president of the Tomato Growers' Association of California.

We represent 1,276 tomato growers who produce tomatoes for processing. This number of growers is 52 percent of the total number of growers in California. The same growers produce approximately 80 percent of the total tonnage of tomatoes grown for processing in the State of California.

I am also a farmer in the Sacramento-Delta area and have grown tomatoes for the last 13 years. It is estimated that for the year 1955 there will be approximately 3,218,630 tons of processing tomatoes grown in the United States of which the State of California will produce better than 62 percent or 2 million tons which will have a value of around $46 million to the growers. These same tomatoes after being processed will have a processed value of approximately $229 million.

Although the crop is of considerable value to the producer, processors and also to the consuming public, we are a forgotten crop as far as Congress is concerned. We are not included under any protection now given the so-called basic crops which receive Government aid. We do not wish to be so included but we do have a grievance which we desire to bring to your attention.

As a crop which is seeking to solve its own problems, we have been discriminated against under the present Federal law. We have been refused the opportunity of helping ourselves through the use of marketing orders. During many previous years before congres

sional hearings, canners have advanced the argument that the canner's operation was to save the surplus. During the past 3 years, 95.72 percent of the total tonnage of tomatoes grown in California was produced exclusively for processing.

How can it be maintained that 95.72 percent of a crop is surplus? The present law includes olives for canning and asparagus for canning. The law instead of giving equal protection to all canning crops extends its protection only to olives and asparagus for canning. As a representative of the canning tomato industry, it may be the better part of wisdom on my part and for the benefit of my fellow canning tomato producers to suggest that legislation be enacted permitting the tomato producers to come within the purview of this law and disregard all other canning agricultural commodities.

However, limited legislation at this time would not be fair to other canning fruit and vegetable producers, nor would it serve the best interests of the tomato growers. The tomato growers are not asking for mandatory regulation. We ask that the legislation be permissive that the tomato grower shall have the right to petition the Secretary of Agriculture for the imposition of orders or agreements upon the approval of the requisite vote or assent.

In conclusion, in the American tradition the tomato growers for whom I speak do not ask for class legislation. However, they do request that Congress give them the same opportunity as is afforded asparagus for canning and olives for canning. They ask that legislation be enacted giving all producers the optional or permissive right to effectuate marketing orders.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chambers.

STATEMENT OF A. W. CHAMBERS, SECRETARY, UTAH STATE CANNING CROP GROWERS ASSOCIATION, SMITHFIELD, UTAH

Mr. CHAMBERS. I did not know, when I arrived, that I would have an opportunity to say anything here, but I have drawn up a few words, and I have left copies with you.

I am A. W. Chambers, a canning crops and dairy farmer, also secretary of the Utah State Canning Crop Growers Association.

Farm prices have dived downward while costs have stayed up. Per capita income of farmers are only 50 percent as high as the income of nonfarmers. The farmer's share of the consumer's food dollar, which was 52 cents in 1946, is now 42 cents. Farm income, which comprised 10.3 percent of the national income in 1947, is now only 6 percent.

There is much argument that our population is increasing at the rate of 3 million per year and that soon supply and demand will balance. Those that propose this idea do not realize that because of research that will show better ways to control pests and diseases, better seed varieties, better cultural practices, and better farm equipment will make possible stepping up production much more than the increase population can consume.

The war demand stimulated the greatest agriculture production of our history and whether or not we had had high rigid supports or flexible supports, it would be hard to slow down production, until such time that enough producers are broke and unable to produce.

I am opposing high rigid supports. I favor flexible supports along with control of diverted acres by placing them in a soil bank.

The following facts from the United States Department of Agriculture 1955 edition, volume 32, shows as follows:

If 90 percent of parity is what made the increase production and the surplus, what made the higher price than 90 percent if it was not war demand?

I do agree there was some stimulation in 90 percent, but war demand was the greatest factor.

In the year 1955, the first year that we have really had a flexible. price support program our production of food and fiber is estimated to be the largest in our history, except 1948 based on the present estimate of the Department of Agriculture.

Unless acres diverted from basic crops are controlled, it will just mean the transferring of the surplus problem to crops that are not suported, which is unfair. It is also, very discriminatory to the farmers that have no supports. Sooner or later the flexible support theory will break a good percentage of the farmers of America unless the acres diverted are controlled. We had better spend some money in a soil bank that can be drawn on if and when it is needed, than to store commodities we do not need at a high cost of storage, along with a loss on the commodity.

Farmers and food processors cannot pass their added costs on to the consuming public as industries like farm machinery manufacturing, the automobile industry, the steel industry, and various others can. The guaranteed annual wage and other labor union demands will increase the cost of everything that farmers buy in the next year or two, and until we control the surpluses in agriculture, farmers will not be able to increase their prices. Why is it not just as fair to pay an incentive to control surpluses in agriculture by building a soil bank to be drawn on when it is needed, as it is to obligate employers by law to provide two or three billion dollars a year to pay people who are unemployed to sit in their rocking chairs for 26 weeks out of the year if they can't find work more than 19 weeks.

It is my opinion that we should provide a law requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to make a list of the basic as well as the nonbasic crops that are in surplus, and those that yet might produce surpluses, and require that they be placed in a soil bank with an incentive payment until supply is brought in line with demand, or until the increased population or a war emergency justified bringing them into production.

The CHAIRMAN. We have had quite a bit of testimony on this soil bank idea.

Would you give us your idea, or give the committee, your idea of how you would reach a fair price to be paid to the farmer on a per acre basis on these diverted acres?