STATEMENT OF FRANK LONG, FRESNO COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, FRESNO, CALIF.

The CHAIRMAN. Give us your name in full for the record and your occupation.

Mr. LONG. I am Frank Long. I am a farmer and I am from California.

Mr. Chairman and all the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee and distinguished guests, it is certainly much more than just gratifying to the folks in California and particularly to we in the San Joaquin Valley, who are having the honor of being your hosts on your visit and your attempt-which I hope will be successful, in finding and putting into effect a solution to the national agricultural problem and all of us who are here with you today want to be helpful to you in finding that solution.

First, I think it is necessary to take just a little of the time you have allotted me, to explain the thinking and effort behind our proposal for an entirely new approach to the farm problem.

When the secretary of the agricultural committee of the Fresno County Chamber of Commerce requested a spot be given for their suggested plan on the day's agenda, he received in effect, a reply that you folks were not too interested in listening to anyone other than farmers: Well, to clarify the chamber's interest in this matter I want to say the suggestion for a farm plan was thought out, with others helping, and written by a farmer-an American farmer-one who has farmed all his life.

It was then given to the agricultural committee of the chamber for their study and consideration and on October 31, 1947, it was adopted by the board of directors as a farm program which they could vigorously and conscientiously support, and I am very proud that I have had the opportunity to present that program three different times to congressional committees, and now to your own Senate Agriculture Committee.

Now I want to explain just a little why we believe it is necessary to have a completely new farm program.

We have in this Nation 3 things and 3 things only, that make our national economy; they being industry, labor, and agriculture, and when all three are considered and treated equally, and are equal, we have a sound and stable national economy. But as of today industry has the protection of fair-trade practices, labor has its minimum-wage law and with our high standard of living, those commitments to industry and labor, in my opinion are not only justified, they are American, but please remember, of the 3, agriculture, is the barometer for the other 2, and if not treated as an equal, with a parity income comparable with industry and labor, our whole economic structure collapses

The CHAIRMAN. What would become of industry and labor if the farmer should get out of business?

Mr. LONG. That is what I am going to tell you.

History has proven that as a fact; the last collapse occurring in the memory of most everyone in this room, and right now we are again in the same trend, and the pattern is exactly the same; stocks and bonds, and paper profits going up and up, and the prices received

by agriculture going down and down, and the Agriculture Department repeating almost daily that farm prices have taken another drop, but, the future for farmers is very bright—just when I wonder. Statistics show that for the past half century, for every new dollar in wealth produced by agriculture, 6 more are created in national wealth by the turnover in circulation, so just how long can national economy last with only 2 of our economic segments showing prosperity.

In the last 20 or so years we have had 5 different Department of Agriculture Secretaries and about the same number in different kinds of so-called farm programs, in fact the name "farm program" has become the biggest political football this Nation has ever seen, and lately it has seemed to have settled down to a fight between parties, 90 percent parity supports on one side, as against so-called flexible parity by the other, and neither one has solved our farm problems.

It is my opinion they never will or can, because the 90 percent gave quick birth to a large number of speculators, who quickly became suitcase farmers that could smell a quick dollar by leasing or buying large acreages of land which had in most instances never been farmed before to basic crops.

That action did much to build huge unmanageable surpluses. Then another Secretary took over who evidently got the impression that the less farmers received the more they would have, with the theory that if the price-parity scale was low, farmers would not raise so much, and surplus supplies would disappear, but the records show that surpluses under the sliding scale are greater today than they were yesterday and now the Department of Agriculture seems to have finally come to realize that you can't have a sound national economy with falling farm prices, so they have come up with another farm-program experiment with a find sounding and catchy name, soil bank, whereby land rented by the Government would be taken out of basic crop production and planted to grasses so more livestock could be produced.

You know, I just can't stretch my imagination enough, to believe that a program which would greatly increase the difficulties and would likely cause disaster to the livestock industry, could in any possible way be acceptable to the producers of livestock.

Propaganda out of Washington informs the public almost daily that it is not low prices that is hurting farmers, but it is the price squeeze that is causing the trouble, that prices the farmer has to pay are too high, and wages are too high, and the impression I get from such releases is that someone wants prices and wages lowered to level of prices now being received by farmers.

Gentlemen, you just can't have a stable national economy with falling income and certainly every farmer and forester knows you can't improve a grove of trees by cutting the large and thrifty to the level of the lowest trees in the grove.

And I am certainly sure if we are to continue with the high standard of living, and a way of life with profit, which industry, labor, and agriculture has built over the years for the people of this Nation, then I am of the opinion the fair-trade laws for industry and minimum wage laws for labor are necessary but it is also mandatory that

agriculture have 100 percent of parity prices for all its production which is consumed in this Nation and this is the way it can be done. This is a draft of fundamental points upon which we believe the Nation's farm program must be passed as a permanent national policy in order to obtain the maximum production and to insure a healthy agricultural economy as the base for the national prosperity, and I believe that the administration of this program is the important part in keeping this an agricultural program.

1. Believing that the administration of this program is the important part in keeping this an agricultural program, authority for administration must be placed in the hands of actual farmers who will be named in the following manner: (a) Farmers in each community to elect their representatives. (b) Community committeemen to elect the county committeemen.

(c) County committeemen to elect State committeemen.

(d) State committeemen to elect 12 regional committeemen.

(e) The 12 regional committeemen to be the national committee.

(f) Elections to be held annually.

(g) Each group to determine policy and administer acts at their respective levels.

2. All parts of the program to be based upon preservation of the United States market for the United States farmer so far as he is able to supply it.

3. Agriculture must receive a fair price for its products on a comparable basis with the prices of industry and labor. This is to be accomplished by the following methods:

(a) Marketing quotas equal to the estimated domestic demand plus a safe reserve with loans set at the comparable price. Acreage allotments to be set only for the estimated domestic demand and reserve. All production in excess of domestic demand and reserve to be exported and sold at prevailing world market prices.

(b) A national tariff policy which will maintain tariff rates representing the difference in the cost of labor, materials, and transportation between American and foreign products.

(c) Crop insurance to be provided based upon recommendations of elected committeemen so policy could fit areas involved.

(d) Soil-conservation practices and compliance with allotment quotas to be required for participation in loan or insurance program.

4. A healthy agricultural economy depends upon the disposal of surpluses and the elimination of all subsidy and benefit payments by those or any other names. 5. Nothing in this plan shall preclude the establishment within agricultural industries of programs of marketing agreements.

6. The national committee created under this plan shall make all interpretation of the enabling Federal acts, determining as to its scope and applicability to specific agricultural industries, based upon the recommendations of the regional, State, and county committee.

This program was adopted by the Agricultural Committee on October 29, 1947 and approved by the board of directors of the Fresno County Chamber of Commerce, October 31, 1947, and amended on October 7, 1955.

Attest:

CARL A. DOUGHERTY, Secretary.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that I can give you a word picture that will be a better definition of this by relating a little incident that Clinton Anderson, one of your own committee, told me at a convention in Santa Cruz a few years ago when we were eating lunch. He said that there was a young farm couple that lived out in the country close to him, and not too big a farmer. He had a carpenter and a mechanic working on the place.

There was to be a birth in the family.

About noon one day something happened. He called the doctor. The doctor was a young doctor.

I am assuming that this is all true because Clinton Anderson told it and he is a truthful man.

They called this young doctor and he came as quickly as he could. He walked into the room, he passed the young farmer and his mechanic and his carpenter, walked right on through to the bedroom. There were some very agonizing sounds coming from the bedroom. He entered it; soon he looked through the crack of the door and he said, "Has the carpenter got a screwdriver?" The carpenter had. He passed it to him through the crack in the door. The noises still kept going on. In a moment he came back and he said through the crack in the door, "It won't do. Has the mechanic got a pair of pliers?"

The mechanic pulled a pair a pliers out of his pocket and handed it through the crack in the door. The noises still continued in the bedroom.

For the third time the door opened a crack, and he told the farmer, "Have you got a piece of baling wire about that long [indicating] with a little hook on the end of it?"

The farmer had it, of course. He handed it to him. In a moment there was no more noise. In a few minutes, the door opened wide and he came out smiling and he said, "Well, it is the birth of a new baby. That farmer instruments did the job."

That farmer said, "Well, my God, what were you trying to do in there with all of those instruments?"

He said, "You know, I just could not get that medicine case open without that wire."

You are the doctors, you have got the wire, you have got the plan; it will work, it has worked for industry. The plan is all made by industry. It has worked satisfactorily for them and it will work satisfactorily for agriculture.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Mr. Long.

We have now reached 6 minutes after 4. We have a few more witnesses to hear from. I want to take this opportunity of thanking my friend here, Senator Kuchel, your distinguished junior Senator, for being with me all day. I wish also to thank your two Congressmen, Mr. Sisk and Mr. Hagen. We were scheduled to recess this hearing at 4 o'clock and I understand that your distinguished junior Senator has other engagements. He asks to be excused. I want to say that we were glad to have you here Senator Kuchel and we will appreciate your further help next January.

The next witness is Mr. Bream. (No response.)

Mr. HAGEN. May I interrupt at this point?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HAGEN. Congressman Sisk and myself are greatly concerned with the problem of providing enough appropriation for the national forests in order that they might take care of their fire needs and recreational needs, and Mr. Philpott is present. If you reserve the right for him to submit a statement on that subject, we would appreciate it.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will indeed be glad to receive the statement. Is he present? Will you present your statement to the secretary? We will be glad to have it incorporated in the record.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. PHILPOTT, PRESIDENT, SPORTSMEN'S COUNCIL OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, AND MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, FRESNO, CALIF.

Mr. PHILPOTT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is G. W. Philpott, president of the Sportsmen's Council and also vice president of the National Wildlife Federation.

I would like to testify, Mr. Chairman, on another division of your committee, that is to say, on forestry.

Our problem in California-and after hearing your excellent talk last night-permits we to restate our problem, that is, we have in California, 2 million people who go fishing and hunting and that number is growing tremendously, far more than the population of the State of California, so that in another 10 years we expect to have some 3 million people who go fishing and hunting in this State.

In California we have 20 million acres of forest land and, as of today, averaging that up, knowing your desire to go into statistics, occasionally to point out to you that that is 10 acres for every person who is fishing and hunting in the State.

Our aim is for more funds, a larger appropriation for wildlife and recreation within our forests.

We have had several bills in the last session of Congress 10 percent, that is, what we call 10 percent bills, that would appropriate or allocate 10 percent of the forest revenue bank to wildlife and recreation. Most of those bills have a $5 million maximum on them.

I would like to point out to you that that maximum was quite small because in the United States we have about 50 million people who go fishing and hunting, and that averages up to about 10 cents apiece. If we did receive that $5 million, which we did not. We actually did receive from Congress $210,000 for wildlife management and that was to cover 180 million acres of forest land in the entire United States. And that, of course, is about 1 cent for each 10 acres.

We also received $1,670,000 for sanitary purposes and camp facilities within our national forests. That is far, far from enough.

I believe I have attempted to point out to you the tremendous number of people that come. I have only talked about the people that go fishing and hunting, not the other millions who use the forest service for other purposes, to say nothing of our forest-fire-prevention campaigns.

Generally speaking, those people are opposed to what we might call an "admission fee" into our forests, because it somehow removes our public lands from the category of public lands and makes them a place where you have to pay to go into, and, thereby, it takes on the category of a commercial nature somewhat.

It is possible that we could arrive at some use permit and just exactly what I am not sure. Perhaps a campfire permit or a camp-use permit. I believe it has been proposed.

We do want Congress to survey and review and audit the budget of the Forest Service and all budgets for that matter, because we think it is definitely good business and represents a hold on the public purse. So we would like to propose to you some possibilities.

First, a reevaluation of one of those 10-percent bills even with a maximum on it. We appreciate the fact that there is some opposition