I think that is something the American people kind of forgot. We farmers did not keep any money. That money was paid to us and it was sent to the little dealers, the clothing-store man, the druggist, the dentist, the doctor, and all of those people, clear on down the line. Why should a subsidy worry people?

That is about all I have got to say on cattle. I would be glad to answer any questions.

I have been in business a long time. In fact, I grew up on the farm. And my father before me.

The CHAIRMAN. What size is your place?

Mr. Love. We have 800 acres.

The CHAIRMAN. You grow your own feed?
Mr. LOVE. We grow our own roughage feed.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you buy the corn?

Mr. Love. The corn and the grain. We raise our barley.

Getting back to this potato deal, we live in an early section, what is known as the early section. At the present time there are 13,000 acres in there. There is no storage to speak of. There are possibly 150,000, 200,000 sacks of storage in that district.

We have a problem that has come up. When we had cross compliance, the crops of California, and our big producing States, Idaho, Maine, were pretty much stabilized.

When cotton was cut in California, the boys went into potatoes, and they raised last year to the extent of 23 percent. That started a pyramid.

As it came down the line, Arizona came in. Hereford, Tex., I think, I think they increased almost-well, with the new wells and things like that, possibly 30 or 40 percent. And it has pyramided the early crop clear down until the late crop comes in.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you come down to brass tacks? Tell us what you would do about it. That is what we would like to know.

Mr. Love. In these acreas, they have probably a history by now. I think some storage would help to a certain extent to alleviate this marketing. Instead of being marketed in 6 weeks, they could be carried over a 6-months period. I have storage for 100,000 sacks of potatoes. I have remained out of the early deal.

The history of that thing is that the people dislike to store potatoes, because there is more shrink on them. They grow the potatoes this year and do not get the money until next year. It is a long-time deal. They want money to pay the pickers. It is quite expensive. It is $50 an acre on Idaho. They pick enough-they sell enough to pay their pickers. And then after they get them in storage we will see a lull in the deal, and then the market has a tendency to strengthen. It has in the past.

I think the potato acreage is entirely too high, but I think our crosscompliance, if it had been held on and kept these districts from enlarging in their acreage, it would have been very good for us.

The CHAIRMAN. We are familiar with that. We thank you very much.

We have six more witnesses who have asked to be heard. We have added them. I will be very glad to hear from them, if they have something new. I will call on them. Try to help us out by sticking to the point and trying to give us something that you have not heard here today. If you do, we will get along quickly. If you can limit your

testimony to new matter, anything to solve the problem, we will be glad to hear from you.

The first is Mr. Trentham. There was a banker who testified here this morning, Mr. McFarland.

What is the name of the gentleman you said that you would like for us to hear?

Mr. MCFARLAND. Mr. Trentham.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF B. C. TRENTHAM, QUAY COUNTY, N. Mex.

Mr. TRENTHAM. My name is B. C. Trentham of Quay County, N. Mex. Our problem is a little different from those you have heard today. Ours is broomcorn.

New Mexico being one of the major broomcorn producing States in the Nation, and Quay County is one of the major broomcorn producing counties of the State, the economic status of the farmers is of vital importance to the economy of the county, State, and Nation.

There is an estimated 20,000 acres of broomcorn grown annually in Quay County. This represents the total cash income for an estimated one-tenth of all families in Quay County. The weather condition, such as rainfall, wind, and so forth, are such that oftentimes broomcorn is the only crop a farmer can grow.

The table below gives some information regarding broomcorn. These figures are estimates from the USDA and county agent's office in Quay County.

Total consumption in the United States--
Total production in the United States_
Total import to the United States__
Production in Quay County (estimate).

Tons

45, 000

30,000

15,000

2,500

With the above information in mind, the Quay County broomcorn growers are asking for an import duty of $50 per ton to be placed on all foreign broomcorn shipped into the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Is your recommendation or remedy to put a tariff on it?

Mr. TRENTHAM. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You see, this committee does not have jurisdiction over that at all. I will be glad to present your statement to the proper committee.

Another thing, any law or bill on the subject must originate in the House of Representatives. We cannot in the Senate put in a law. So my suggestion to you is that you might get hold of your Congressman and have him put in a bill in the House and let it go through the regular channels. As I say, in the Senate we cannot handle it until it comes from the House. We can hear evidence, but it would not be effective, because we cannot do anything about it.

Mr. TRENTHAM. This bill has been produced before and died somewhere along the line. It has never reached you.

The CHAIRMAN. You know why it has died, do you not?

Mr. TRENTHAM. I figure I know.

The CHAIRMAN. The present administration as well as the past-we will not make any differences-does not like to impose too many tariff barriers. They want trade to be more or less free between nations.

It has been going on in this way the last 2 years, so that we got the short end of it. Whether something can be done along that line, I do not know. As I said, the only way by which it could be handled is as I have suggested. So far as this committee is concerned, it would not have any jurisdiction.

Mr. TRENTHAM. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Is Mr. Albert Matlock here? Please step forward. Give us your full name for the record.

STATEMENT OF ALBERT MATLOCK, GRIER, N. MEX.

Mr. MATLOCK. My name is Albert Matlock. I have a prepared statement that I would like to enter into the record.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to put it in the record at this point. (The prepared statement of Mr. Matlock is as follows:)

Due to the approximate 30 percent decrease in net income of agriculture since 1947 and due to the fact that we have been operating under direct rigid 90 percent supports for a number of years, I am of the opinion that 90 percent direct rigid price supports are not the answer to the farm problem. We have just now gone under a flexible price support system and are willing to give it a fair trial, but the program is certainly in error when the Congress of the United States leaves it at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture to support nonbasic crops at any price he chooses.

This is what he did in the case of grain sorghums just because there was a used-to-be feed processor in his personnel group and this man suggested that the Secretary support grain sorghums and other nonbasic crops at 70 percent of parity. The purpose of this was to discourage the planting of these nonbasic crops on diverted acres, the acres that were taken out of the production of wheat, cotton, corn, rice, peanuts and tobacco because of allotments.

If the Secretary had said that he would support nonbasic crops that were under price supports at 10 percent of parity, these diverted acres would have gone into the production of grain sorghums and other nonbasic crops because the producers of basic crops gain their livelihood from that particular commodity and on their diverted acres they are only looking for a catch crop. There are some areas that gain their livelihood solely from the production of grain sorghums, therefore, it becomes the responsibility of the Congress of the United States to control diverted acres so that the non-basic-crop producers of America will not be completely bankrupted.

In

Diverted acres are one of the biggest problems facing American agriculture today, and it certainly should be the responsibility of Congress to place controls on these diverted acres. This is the program that I would suggest be given a careful study and adopted by the Congress of the United States. declaring what each producer should have as diverted acres, when growing a crop under allotments, whether it be basic or nonbasic, that he be required to leave out of production the national percentage of cut in the crop only that is under allotment that he might be farming on his particular farm. He should not be required to leave any acres out of production if he is not farming a crop that is under allotment.

When the producer of allotted crops leaves these acres out of production he should draw a soil-building payment in the form of a soil-bank payment. It is not the responsibility of American agriculture alone to preserve the fertility of the soil for future generations unless each and every agricultural commodity were bringing into the pocket of the producer 100 percent of parity. The nonbasic producer cannot produce his crop at 70 percent of parity and allow acres coming out of the production of basic crops to ruin his chance of getting any more than the loan rate for his crops.

Therefore, I would urge that diverted acres be controlled and that grain sorghums be supported at not less than 75 percent of parity. I also urge that the Secretary of Agriculture be required to designate commercial grain sorghum areas. To qualify for a commercial grain sorghum area, the area must have been in the production of grain sorghums prior to allotment in 1951 and 64440-56-pt. 4-18

those commercial areas would be the only areas eligible for price supports. I would also further urge that the 15-acre or 200-bushel producer of wheat without a penalty be eliminated and that to qualify for the production of wheat for the market he must have a wheat allotment for his farm.

Another problem facing agriculture is that the production cost is still rising by leaps and bounds while the price of agricultural commodities are decreasing. Agriculture cannot sell its wares from 60 to 75 percent of parity and then buy the things that they need in the production of these wares at 100 to 120 percent of parity. That gap must be brought closer together.

Our exports and trading with other nations must be stepped up. I believe on way is to cut out the provision that one-half of the agricultural products sold to foreign nations must be shipped in American-flag ships. It would be a lot better just to pay the maritime commission industry a direct subsidy out of the Federal Treasury and let it make the headlines in our Nation's newspapers for a while. I also think it should be made known that several multimillion dollar sales of United States agricultural products to foreign countries have been lost because of the fact that these countries could not transport all the products in their own ships; instead of having so many headlines telling of the many thousands of dollars lost because of the price supports on agricultural products.

We must stop calling agricultural products that are not needed for immediate use surpluses. We must rename these so-called surpluses to a national food bank or some similar title. We are spending billions of dollars on national defense. The defense of our country still depends largely upon men to operate military equipment efficiently, and men can be efficient only when they are well fed. It is only good planning that we should have a several years' supply of food and fiber on hand at all times in case of war, plague, drought and for many other reasons, which might be beyond the control of man. We must never lose sight of the fact that food and fiber is a vital part of our national defense and certainly agriculture should get its proportional part of the national defense moneys that are now being spent in America. Agriculture is sick today and everything possible must be done to bolster the agricultural economy.

Mr. MATLOCK. A lot of these points have been touched on this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you highlight it and touch those that have not been touched on before.

Mr. MATLOCK. One that I would like to highlight is diverted acres. I think that is one of the biggest problems facing American agriculture today. It certainly should be the responsibility of Congress to place controls on these diverted acres. This is the program that I would suggest be given careful study and adopted by the Congress of the United States. In declaring what each producer should have as diverted acres, when growing a crop under allotments, whether it be basic or nonbasic, that he be required to leave out of production the national percentage of cut in the crop only that is under allotment that he might be farming on his particular farm. He should not be required to leave any acres out of production if he is not farming a crop that is under allotment.

The CHAIRMAN. That is about all we could do, anyhow. In other words, if a farmer has X number of acres of cotton or wheat or whatever crop is protected, your idea would be that on those diverted acres that he not plant anything that may get in complication with some other crop, either protected or not protected?

Mr. MATLOCK. To an extent, that is it. The man that is producing grain sorghums for a livelihood, and we have certain sections in the high plains area of this State of New Mexico and Texas, that produce that solely for a livelihood-they have been in the production of grain sorghums for years and years and years they should not have to leave out of production any acreage until they go under an allotment program.

Now, then, the whole setup is because we have taken 38 million acres out of production of the basic crops, and those 38 million acres went into the production of the nonbasic crops. That is where we are in a pinch.

I would like to state for the record that I am a farmer and rancher of Curry County, N. Mex. I gain my livelihood entirely from farming and ranching. I have been in that line of business all of my life. I know nothing else.

I have studied the farm program to a great extent, and I feel like those diverted acres, the Cargo Preference Act, is another thing that is causing us trouble. I feel like those two things might be some of the answers.

I am a firm believer in the flexible price support system. I think it should be given a chance to work, but I realize that the price support, flexible or nonflexible, rigid, shall not work and cannot work under a surplus that we are now faced with.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no doubt that is the main problem we have there on any program. We have to do something about the surplus.

Mr. MATLOCK. On these diverted acres the man should be allowed a soil-building payment or whatever you might call it. I do not want you in any way to think that the producer of the nonbasic crops which are not under allotment should have to be left out. I am not in favor of a 10 percent cut directly across the board. The people that I have talked to in my rounds are not in favor of that, either, from where I hail from.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Matlock.

Mr. Anthon H. Lee.

STATEMENT OF ANTHON H. LEE, THATCHER, ARIZ.

Mr. LEE. Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Anthon H. Lee. I come from Graham County, Ariz. I am a producer of cotton, both long and short staple, sheep, and alfalfa. I have 224 acres in an irrigated region of about 40,000 acres.

I am completely opposed to the high, rigid price support program. It is directly opposite to every concept of the free enterprise system. It involves Government in our business to the extent that we are told not only what price we will receive, but how many acres we can plant. Such a governmental program has a tendency to perpetuate certain people and parties in power, because authority becomes vested in persons or political parties and the power they exert is contrary to all fundamentals of free citizenry.

As a result of these high supports we have encouraged overproduction and production on land which otherwise would not have been put into basic crops. This overproduction has created surpluses which called for rigid acreage allotments. Acres diverted from basic crops have gone into competition with the long-time producers of nonsupported crops.

I believe we should immediately abandon the program of high rigid price support which have created the situation we are in now. Surpluses should be moved out in an orderly manner in every way possible. Secretary Benson's proposal of selling these commodities to