The CHAIRMAN. To a large extent, yes.

Mr. CHITWOOD. Another thing that we feel definitely in regard to that matter, is that a lot of the farmers are wondering about it since they have been noticing in the paper where England came over to buy so many million bushels of wheat, and found out that half of it had to be hauled in American flagships.

They wonder why that is, why something cannot be done.

Of course, we all know when the law came into effect during the war with the Maritime Commission setting up that half the surplus commodity products stored, that had been stored and moved to other countries, will go in American flapships.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you have got a lot of people in the Congress who believe that we ought to inaintain a strong merchant marine fleet, and one way to do that is to get business.

Now, that is the reason for it.

There are arguments on both sides, but let us not go into that, let us get your solution to this problem.

Mr. CHITWOOD. Well, that is one of our solutions in removing this clause from these agricultural products in world trade.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean to sell more abroad?

Mr. CHITWOOD. That is right.

If some country must haul her own in order to trade with us, she should have the right of hauling her own products that she buys from us.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. CHITWOOD. If she is buying them.

According to the estimate of our increase in population by 1975, we will have more people than we can feed with our present production of agricultural products.

So we definitely need to preserve our soil as much as possible and this, Senator, again is in regard to our soil fertility banks, and be in a position to increase the size of our defense food basket as our population increases.

The CHAIRMAN. I started to ask you a while ago about payments on diverted acres. I wish you would give us, if you have any, your solution. What would you include in estimating the payments?

Mr. CHITWOOD. Senator, it is the thinking of the people from our side of the State, the dryland area primarily-and we do have some irrigation with this deep-well pumping-that if the farmer is enjoying some protection through price supports, maybe it is just a marketing protection, that he should not expect too much to be received from those acres; taxes and interest and the necessary cultivation that the Government might require for the protection of that soil fertility bank.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you limit it to that?

Mr. CHITWOOD. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. CHITWOOD. The present estimate of Government spending for 1956 is $63.8 billions. Of this amount $38.7 billions or about 61 percent, will be used for the major national security programs; while agriculture comes in for 3.4 billions for all of its programs, such as education, research, soil and water conservation, flood prevention, REA, providing loans to bring electricity, and telephones to the

farms, drought relief, Commodity Credit support loans, A. and M. college experiments and extension work.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to make a little correction in your figures here, that is, not a correction but broaden it a little bit.

I serve on the Appropriations Committee, and I am on the subcommittee that provides the funds to run our Army, our armed

services.

For your information, of the entire amount of money that we appropriate, 91 percent is used for past protection, future protection, and the payment of interest on our huge debt.

Mr. CHITWOOD. That is past and future?

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. CHITWOOD. I appreciate that.

The CHAIRMAN. And only 9 percent of the entire budget is actually used for our domestic needs.

You may proceed.

Mr. CHITWOOD. I realize that, Senator. I was merely givingThe CHAIRMAN. I understand that.

Mr. CHITWOOD (continuing). Our present spending for 1956.

The CHAIRMAN. You relegated your figures to our armed service for the future, but I wanted to extend it to past and future and, of course, I included foreign aid.

Mr. CHITWOOD. That is correct.

Those who criticize our agricultural reserves seldom mention the great cost of the military. All branches of the military have since 1945 put on the shelf or declared obsolete more than $80 billion of airplanes, tanks, atomic material, and other war materials. That is more than 10 times the amount we have invested in all phases of agriculture, yet agriculture is the basic economy and backbone of our Nation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Have you any questions, Senator?

Senator ANDERSON. On this soil fertility bank, did I understand your answer to Senator Ellender to be that the farmer probably could not reasonably expect more than his taxes, his interest, and the cost of maintaining that land in such shape that it would do the soil fertility job that was necessary? You cannot let the wind blow it

away.

Mr. CHITWOOD. No; that is right.

Senator ANDERSON. You have to put some sort of a crop on it that will increase fertility, and if you got payment for that practice, plus your taxes and interest, that that probably would be a good solution to this soil fertility problem?

Mr. CHITWOOD. I think that is true, Senator.

I realize you have got many problems throughout our own State, high-priced lands, and the boys say, "We can't leave our $500 land out of production because we have our reclamation payments to make, we have ditchwater rights to pay, or we have an investment in an irrigation well."

But, by the same token, if they are to enjoy a reasonable price or a marketing support on the products they do raise, perhaps they could go a little further along that line than they think.

I do not think we need to expect the Federal Government to go too far as an incentive payment for nonproduction. I hate that word "incentive" payment for nothing.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

All right.

Has Mr. Anderson come in. Reuben V. Anderson. All right, Mr. Clark, will you step forward, please, sir?

Would you give us your name in full for the record, and your occupation?

STATEMENT OF GLEN F. CLARK, MONTE VISTA, COLO.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Glen F. Clark. I derive my entire livelihood from my farming operation. I am spokesman for an area group of farmers like myself located in the San Luis Valley, within the State of Colorado.

We have had Congressmen to tell us, to tell them what we wanted and they would take the responsibility of writing the laws. In our way of thinking some of the laws passed, and some that are up for consideration have a great tendency to divide and conquer agriculture. We have come to the conclusion that Congress should amend the Agriculture Act as amended to read mandatory supported crops where it now reads basic crops. We feel that this is necessary to insure better public relations, clearing up the confusion that now exists. We do not mean we want rigid supports.

We would ask Congress to pass enabling legislation in order that all crops in agriculture would be able to bargain for their fair share of the national economy. This enabling legislation is necessary to take care of the surplus production arising under very favorable growing conditions. Any such legislation that is enacted will have to be strong enough to insure that the farmers and ranchers will not ignore such legislation, pay fines, or in some other manner bypass such legislation.

We would ask Congress to make a very serious study of a soil fertility bank plan in conjunction with production marketing agreements, as a method of controlling surplus production. All lands producing crops should be taken into consideration under such a plan. Some way we must get a percentage of land out of the production of food and fiber. We believe that it is necessary to have a plentiful supply of food and fiber. We also feel it would be much wiser to build fertility in our soil, rather than deplete our soil and store the products in warehouses. This might be accomplished by some form of the soil fertility bank plan.

We believe the export of agriculture products should be steadily expanded in an endeavor to reach the point they formerly held, but it would seem impossible due to the high cost of labor. Also we are of the opinion all departments of Government should cooperate in this matter. It might not be a bad idea to take another look at the Cargo Preference Act.

We believe in the conservation of water and favor a continuation of such programs, but to do so in order to bring new land into production when we have large surpluses, is not in our opinion advisable. We wish to thank the committee for alloting us the time to be heard. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

That is a fine statement, and now I would like for you to answer this question. You made a statement that Congress should pass a law placing the farmer in a position where he can bargain for his share of, I presume you meant, of the national income?

Mr. CLARK. Well

The CHAIRMAN. That is what you say. How would you do that? It is a fine sentiment and I would like to follow through with that. It would be a nice thing if the farmers could get together and bargain the same as labor. But I am wondering how you could attain that goal.

Senator ANDERSON. Did you mean bargain in the sense of compliance with the program? That would be a form of bargaining, if you complied with the production control or something of that nature.

Mr. CLARK. You understand, I said we would ask Congress to pass enabling legislation in order that all crops in agriculture would be able to bargain for their fair share of the national economy.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Now, that is a very significant sentence, and it sounds good. But how would you attain that goal? That is what I would like to know. In other words, how could you get the chicken farmer to bargain, the turkey farmer and others like them. You do have farmers whose entire income is wrapped up in chicken production.

You have some whose entire income is wrapped up in turkey production. You have some farms whose entire income is wrapped up in the production of hogs, or in the production of cattle.

Now, it sounds good to me to hear what you stated. What I am asking you is how would you do that?

Mr. CLARK. Now, I do not wish to take too much time of this committe because we have some more testimony coming from our area that might enlighten you so far as enabling legislation is concerned, as to what I am talking about here in this sentence.

The CHAIRMAN. As far as you are concerned, could you give us any inkling of how it could be accomplished?

Mr. CLARK. I know the soil fertility bank plan is something to be studied.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right.

Mr. CLARK. I realize that.

The CHAIRMAN. As a member of this committee, we have heard it at every place we have been and, personally, I think there is a lot to it. The problems involved in reaching a formula will probably be difficult.

If we had only New Mexico to handle, why, we could probably write a program in 10 minutes. But we have Wyoming, Louisiana and similar situations. You take Wyoming, what is a small farm in Wyoming? What is the size of it, the average size, of a Wyoming farm? Thirty-two hundred acres.

Louisiana it is less than a hundred.

Now, you can readily see that if you speak of providing a payment for diverted acres, let us say, in Wyoming to a farmer who has 3,000 acres, why, if he diverts, say, 600 acres, even at $5, that would be a nice little sum.

But you put that down in Mississippi or Louisiana or Alabama or even in New York, and offer a farmer $5, what do you think he would do with you?

Mr. CLARK. I realize the problem.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that is the problem.

Mr. CLARK. I realize the problem.

The CHAIRMAN. In speaking of or advancing a solutnon for the soil bank you must not forget, any of you who advance it, that we have to put something in that law that would be applicable to the 48 States of the Union, and not just to New Mexico. Do you get the idea? Mr. CLARK. That is right.

Senator ANDERSON. You live in San Luis Valley, and you are familiar with the Wyoming. The 3,200 acres, that takes into consideration not only the farm but ranches, and the treatment to preserve a ranch, as Andy Chitwood said, is wholly different from what you put into an irrigated valley and, therefore, the costs would not be comparable at all; it would not be a flat figure, would it?

Mr. CLARK. No, because I say you should make a serious study of the soil fertility bank plan.

I will go ahead and attempt to answer your first question, if you will restate that. I mean, I think you are asking me how would Congress make such legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you put the farmers into a position to bargain on each crop?

Mr. CLARK. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. If you could find a solution to that, we would certainly appreciate it. Let us hear what you have to say on it.

Mr. CLARK. All right. There are two ways that you can go. Now, the farmer, I think, is going to have let this be my own personal opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. CLARK. I think my group will go along with me on this thinking.

The CHAIRMAN. Let it be your own, forget about your group. I said a while ago: I want to get the individual farmers to testify; forget about groups. You tell me, you might have the answer to the problem. I do not know whether you do or not; but I hope you do, and I mean that.

Mr. CLARK. You have

I mean

The CHAIRMAN. I am not trying to be facetious now. exactly what I say. The spark may come from any farmer who testifies. We have got a lot of smart men in the Senate, you know, but none of them have solved the problem yet. They have advanced certain ideas but, to get unanimity on those ideas is most difficult. We have been pretty far apart at times, but when you consider you have to get a majority of the 96 Senators and a majority of the 435 Members of the House, you can see how difficult our problem is. Mr. CLARK. All right.

There are two ways that you can go. The farmer must make up his mind as to which way he wants to go.

Now, one way is an incentive payment plan. The other way is to make enabling legislation whereby farmers can vote whether they want to go into such a plan or not.

The CHAIRMAN. We have that system now.

Mr. CLARK. In your marketing agreements.

The CHAIRMAN. No. We have it for cotton, we have it for wheat. For instance, farmers vote on wheat. If two-thirds of the farmers