It would stabilize your markup; it would stabilize your market, because the produce trade takes such a large markup because of the risk involved of market fluctuations.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, suppose you limit it to 90 percent as you

say

Mr. STILL. As a floor.

The CHAIRMAN (continuing). And there would be no takers, would you expect the Government to take it over?

Mr. STILL. Sir?

The CHAIRMAN. I say, suppose you limit, as you say, limit it to 90 percent of parity and there would be no takers, that is, the farmer could not sell it in the trade, would you expect the Government to take over the potatoes?

Mr. STILL. No.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you handle it? What good would it be to say to a farmer, "You can have 90 percent," if he cannot get it, if there is no method to enforce it?

Mr. STILL. In my statement, Senator, in the cost study made by our committee, it shows that we can do to-under OPS, we were getting $3 for potatoes.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that.

Mr. STILL. And it still did not affect the price to the consumer. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that we have been trying to show this. It was only a few years ago when the farmers were getting 53 cents out of the dollar. Today he is getting about what, 44 cents? Mr. STILL. Forty-three.

The CHAIRMAN. Forty-three. We have been trying to stop that. So far we have not been able to find any gadgets to do that. We are now in search of suggested procedures.

Mr. STILL. That is why we want this stopped at a given point, because the farmers of America are helpless to resist that passing back, and those markups were developed under OPS which were largely more than the trade normally got, and, naturally, they are resisting any cutback, and they have had increases; I realize that.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand exactly what you have in mind, too, but the point is if the farmers cannot sell their crop, so as to obtain 90 percent of parity, the trade will not take it, then who will you sell it to? You say you would not want the Government to do it. Mr. STILL. I feel confident

The CHAIRMAN. How would it help the farmer just to tell him, "We want you to have 90 percent," but there is no way to enforce it? Do you get the point I am driving at?

Mr. STILL. Yes; but we know the production of potatoes is within the normal consumption of the country, and we will get a normal price. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that is the whole problem. In other words, if we could get the farmers of this Nation to produce each year 300 million bushels, we would have no problem. But how would you do that?

Mr. STILL. Marketing quotas with a flexible quota transferred into

acreage.

The CHAIRMAN. That is easier said than done. I wish you would put it more in language that we could

Mr. STILL. We are working on it in the national council committee, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you let the committee have it when you work it out for us?

Mr. STILL. Well, as we have pointed out, potatoes are extremely sensitive to oversupply and favorable weather conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. And they are very sensitive to many Congressmen and Senators when it comes to price supports, I will tell you that. Mr. STILL. We are not asking for price supports.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. But I have found this: To get farmers to do it on a voluntary basis is very difficult; there has got to be some measure of incentive and if you folks can work out something whereby it can be accomplished, in other words, to make it inviting for them to do something, to produce at this level, our troubles would probably be solved. It is that little spark we are looking for to do that exact thing, to produce the cotton we need for export and domestic consumption, just the amount of potatoes, and pigs and chickens, and so forth; that is what we are looking for.

If we can ever solve that we will not have any trouble whatever, and it is to attain that goal that we are looking for advice. I mean, we are looking for a method to attain that goal. That is what we are looking for.

Mr. STILL. Senator, don't you feel that consumption would be higher in agriculture if agriculture was 100 percent of parity? The CHAIRMAN. I cannot quite agree with that.

Mr. STILL. I base that on this fact

The CHAIRMAN. We have had before this committee and we may have some come here today, for all I know, who complain that the 90 percent rigid price supports have been responsible for our being unable to sell our commodities on foreign markets. If we cannot sell it on a 90-percent basis, how will you sell it at 100 percent? Do you get the idea?

Mr. STILL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All of us want 100 percent.

Mr. STILL. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. But when you tell this committee as I have heard many of them parade before us and say, "Well, 90 percent has meant a lot of production, it has cut off our markets abroad," and all of that, and others say, "Give us 100 percent." If you cannot dispose of cotton or wheat when the payments are 90 percent, how in the name of commonsense will you do it if you give them 100 percent?

It just goes without saying that you are aggravating the situation. Don't you agree?

Mr. STILL. No, I will not agree with part of it.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Tell me why?

Mr. STILL. Last spring, in Bakersfield, Calif., I heard the head produce buyer at a growers' meeting make this statement, that if you had quality and eye appeal, and quality to back it up, price would make no difference to the housewife, and all you need to do is to walk within a block there and see that potatoes were selling in bulk at 9 cents a pound when the Idaho growers were having a struggle to get the cost of production.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you know, California stands out-those boys can grow potatoes.

All they have to do is to pull a string and it rains. Other parts of the country it is the same way. But out in Ohio, Louisiana, Florida, in many other parts, we have got to depend on the Almighty. If he says it will rain only 4 inches, it will rain only 4 inches. We cannot pull the string. These folks can and we cannot control the quality production as they do. That goes for peaches.

I guess the finest peaches in the world are Louisiana peaches. But we cannot sell too much because they will not ship because of the growing, the climatic conditions, can't you see? But out in California they can grow them and preserve them and send them anywhere, and I would be dubious of any solution offered by anybody from California in that regard.

Mr. STILL. Well, this is a nationwide store.

The CHAIRMAN. What was that?

Mr. STILL. It is a nationwide food chain.

The CHAIRMAN. They can control markets. This production is so big they can cut the spigot off. We had the Fig Institute before us the day before yesterday, and I was very much impressed with the man. He made a fine statement. But when you analyze it, they can easily control figs, because California happens to be the only one that had dried figs.

Mr. STILL. That is true.

The orange situation operating under marketing agreements, we realize that you have got to have a tight area to operate.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure that all of the witnesses see the problems that face us. If we had only New Mexico to deal with, why, before I leave here, I might be able to write you out a little formula to settle your problems, but when you have to apply it to every State in the Union, my good friend, Congressman Dempsey, here, can tell you where the shoe pinches.

Mr. STILL. There was one other point I would like to bring out, sir, and that is in regard to a national farm program in regard to potatoes, that there should be a markoff for grower organizational work so that you will have a grassroots voice in the national circles and programs.

I attended the Chicago emergency meeting, and they tried to determine some way to get rid of the surplus. The industry as a whole is completely helpless to do that under present conditions. We need a national program fitting the whole industry.

The CHAIRMAN. You want industry to do that?

Mr. STILL. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Good. Good luck to you. I would like to see them do it.

Mr. STILL. I would want to do it with a provision in the law that can do that.

The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing stopping them from doing it themselves if they will.

Mr. STILL. Under a marketing agreement, we can do it.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know of any law under the land that would stop them.

Mr. STILL. Well, the Federal Marketing Agreement law does not permit them to do it, and that is the only means of assessment we have. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. STILL. I would like to say that Mr. Ben Davidson of the Oregon Potato Commission filed a statement in Pendleton. He called me last night to ask permission to revise his statement and refile another. The CHAIRMAN. You mean in Pendleton?

Mr. STILL. He filed it at Pendleton.

The CHAIRMAN. Oregon?

Mr. STILL. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that will be done.

Mr. Stanton, take note of that for the permanent record, to take the revised statement of Mr. Davidson.

Mr. STILL. Ben Davidson. And put in the record the revised state

ment.

The CHAIRMAN. We will do that with pleasure.
All right.

Mr. Collins?

Mr. Asa Willis, is he present?

Will you sit here, please. Tell us your name and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF DON COLLINS, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AMARILLO, TEX.

Mr. COLLINS. Senator, my name is Don Collins. I am first vice president of the American National Cattlemen's Association.

I am also in the ranching business, farming business, and I have an interest in a very small bank in Kit Carson, Colo.

I want to thank you for giving me and us the opportunity to testify. I do want to say that the American National has gone on record many times opposing support prices on cattle.

We feel that it is a commodity, I mean, it is perishable, and it would be very, very difficult to control.

We know, and I am glad that you mentioned it, Senator, a while ago that there were a lot of doctors and lawyers and people in the cattle business who probably maybe went into the business to show a loss on their income tax, I do not know.

But nevertheless, we feel that it is a business if it is left alone, why in a matter of a year or two, it should work out of the difficulties. The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(Off the record discussion.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee received a lot of evidence to that effect and it is a fact that many of those fellows did not have all the money necessary and when the banks called on them to turn loose, why they took what the market brought and these purchasers from Chicago and from Kansas City, who processed them, why, they were having a holiday with it. But the poor farmer out there was the one suffering, do you get the point?

Mr. COLLINS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. We will not try to stop it, but we will try to discourage it.

Mr. COLLINS. I will be brief.

The American National did start what we called a beef-promotion program. We knew that we were in trouble in 1953 because so many people were discouraged with the price that cattle were bringing, so we started a National Beef Council and all the State associations and local associations thought that the only way that we could overcome

this would be to promote and advertise beef and we think we have done a splendid job.

Our beef consumption has gone up considerably. I think this year that probably it will be close to 80 pounds on beef. Last year it was 78, and at the end of the war it was around 68.

So we felt like if we could advertise our product-we have the best product in the world, we think of course everybody thinks theirs is the best-we think that we can probably work out of this all right.

I would like to mention that we also have a marketing committee, we have been studying the marketing of the cattle, and we have a research committee, and we think with all these committees that we can help the ranchers in the business.

I do want to make a comment on Mr. Brock's statement on this longterm loan and the cheap credit.

The American National has gone on record as favoring that. We realize that due to the drought and certain conditions with good ranchers, that they were faced with serious drought, and they are entitled to some help.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you, Would you say that the program should apply only in case of emergencies, or would it be, should it be, put on a permanent basis with the understanding that if local bankers are unable, or will not assist the local cattle growers, then the Government could come in?

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I understand now that every State has a drought committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. COLLINS. And if this committee recommends certain counties in the disaster area, the Secretary of Agriculture can declare them a disaster area and then, in that event, why they can use this Great Western Plains or-I don't know as I would be in favor of extending it all over the Nation because I believe in certain localities where the ranchers are prospering that possibly the banks could take care of these people.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you want the law to remain as it is?

Mr. COLLINS. That is my idea, Senator, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

We are glad to have your views.

Mr. COLLINS. I think that is all I have to say. Thank you kindly. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Robert Taylor.

His statement will be inserted in the record.

(Statement filed by Robert C. Taylor, Alamosa, Colo. :)

I wish to thank you for this opportunity to express my thoughts along with the thinking of many of my neighbors in the livestock business with regard to the present agricultural situation.

First, we feel that men in both agriculture and industry should be encouraged to rely on their own resources and not look to our Government for aid. Price supports should be used only on a flexible and temporary basis to keep growers of various agricultural commodities in business until surpluses can be disposed of and the basic economic law of supply and demand can adequately regulate production. Continued strong agricultural credit to operators of adequate family-type units is desirable and should be continued.

Soil conservation practices should be continued with special emphasis on water conservation and flood control.