The CHAIRMAN. How would you suggest we do that? The CHAIRMAN. That is what I want you to do. We have the same problem at home. We are saying that the rice folks from California, the cotton folks from California, have taken our cotton and rice acres away. If you can give a solution to this you will make farmers in the South happy. Mr. FIBER. I will tell you the best I know. I was in Kentucky visiting my brother-in-law a week ago and his tobacco acres dropped from 20 to 11 acres. I said, "how can it drop when the consumption of tobacco increased materially over the last few years?" He said, "the tobacco has increased from 600 to 700 pounds per acre to 2000 pounds mainly on account of fertilizer." Now I will go further and offer what I would suggest as a remedy. I would suggest that since a major part of the increase in production as I see it has been caused by fertilizer and irrigation and other methods of bringing in new land that we abandon that particular part of it. I have a brother that has been irrigating sorghums and wheat for the last 7 or 8 years and he has increased his production every time he used it. The CHAIRMAN. In Kansas? Mr. FIBER. Yes, in south central Kansas. The CHAIRMAN. How would you make him abandon that? Pass a law to that effect? Mr. FIBER. I would go to the extent of passing a law depriving him of the use of fertilizer until our production is somewhere near normal. Understand, I am no Congressman. Senator YOUNG. Is it not a fact that the support price in many Eastern States for low quality wheat is higher than the support price in Kansas and North Dakota? Is that not one of the reasons the wheat acreage has shifted to the East? Mr. FIBER. Because of the support price? Senator YOUNG. I will give you some support prices. In Maryland at the present time the support price for soft garlicky wheat is $2.49, and in Delaware $2.32, Virginia $2.27, Ohio $2.15. I think it is all inferior quality wheat to what is grown in Kansas. Do you not think our maintaining a high price support for poor quality wheat is one reason wheat acreage has shifted to the East? Mr. FIBER. Yes. I received $2.38 for high quality last year. I have three millers trying to buy my wheat at the present time because it is of high quality and there is where I think the wheat acres should be. Senator YOUNG. If we continue this policy of providing a higher support price for poor quality wheat than for the top quality, are we not bound to get into more trouble? Mr. FIBER. More and more low quality wheat; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bierbaum is next. STATEMENT OF LOUIS BIERBAUM, PALMER, KANS. Mr. BIERBAUM. I have a statement here I wish to file with the committee. I would like to touch upon one thing that was briefly touched upon this morning and that was in regard to the GI. It is a sad fact but it is true, for some of it is impossible to remain there. We might leave it with a heavy heart but we have to. Back to this 90 percent support. I think you will find most of us younger fellows opposed it for this reason: It has been one of the major causes I think for us to get off. Your man in shape that has better credit, better financial condition, there is a double incentive for him to enlarge his operation. He has the equipment anyway and can handle 200 acres as well as 1, so he purchases the fellow that is getting pretty close to the toppling point. Our 90 percent isn't helping us. You say, "O. K., what would happen if you had no support?" He is going out anyway. Why keep this thing going or advocating that Senator THYE. Would you mind if I just ask one question, and that question is this: If you could reestablish agriculture at an economic level that would be comparable to the prospering economic level of business, then would you not permit the young farmer to carry on his farm operations without the threat of financial disaster? You can call it full parity on 90 percent or whatever you want, but the question is simply that agriculture is not on the same level as other segments of the Nation's economy. Therefore, when the farm operator buys a tractor or buys fertilizer or anything else that is necessary in his operation, he is buying on a market that is higher, in relationship to his economic condition. So we as citizens of this Nation have to determine how to put agriculture back on an equality basis within our Nation's economy. Otherwise there is no hope. Ninety percent alone will not do it. Something new has to come into the scheme if we are going to have a stable economy. So while 90 percent is not, the whole answer, parity has got to be achieved for agriculture. Agriculture must be placed in balance with the rest of the Nation's economy. How to achieve this is what we are seeking information on. Mr. BIERBAUM. It is true there has been in the neighborhood of 10,000 farms less in our State and a good percentage were GI's, 5 in my neighborhood. Land is bid up. If you recall, in my country, land is at the highest level it has been in history. It points out the fact I tried to bring out that there is the double incentive to enlarge the operation. I think the land-bank idea has possibilities, and of course we want to put limitations, not like our original 90 percent when it started, which was a temporary thing and became permanent and got us into, in my opinion and my neighbor's opinion, the mess we are in. Incentive was more than was necessary. This bank plan, there should be an end to these emergency measures. They should be considered emergency and not carried on for political reasons like some were in the past. Sometimes it isn't wise to do what is best for the farmer because of political reasons and that makes it a very hard problem to solve. I don't mean to hit you gentlemen with it, but it is a fact. Senator YOUNG. Why do you think price supports have been political? You just said the program was political. Mr. BIERBAUM. I think it was in 1952, we would be supported for 2 more years. What did most of us do on the farm? We put as many acres into wheat as possible because we knew we would get that much for wheat. We had a base to go from there. As you know, our surplus has been 10 percent, or whatever per year, but that is mounting to where it has got to be 50 percent, and it is on our backs. Senator YOUNG. I was curious to know what the political angle was. You said the whole thing had been in politics. Mr. BIERBAUM. I think it would have been politically unwise to put acreage restrictions down a couple of years ago when it was absolutely essential if we wanted to make this program work to hold production down. The same way with the cross compliance. That would burn us. But it would have to be done to work successfully. Senator YOUNG. Do you think most of the farmers were wrong that they wanted any price support? Mr. BIERBAUM. Most of them didn't want it. Senator YOUNG. Do you think that because most of them wanted it, it was political? Mr. BIERBAUM. The majority didn't want it. Senator YOUNG. Didn't want 90 percent? Mr. BIERBAUM. I am convinced. Look at the small percentage that voted on the wheat referendum. Senator YOUNG. The small percent against it? Mr. BIERBAUM. The small percent that voted at all. A large percentage didn't vote. Senator YOUNG. They couldn't have been so much concerned. Mr. BIERBAUM. They are so fed up it leaves a bad taste in their mouths. Senator YOUNG. We have heard so much of politics and price supports everyplace we go and we are anxious to know a little bit more about your thinking on that. Mr. BIERBAUM. You want to know how politics entered? Senator YOUNG. Yes; you said the whole thing got into politics. Mr. BIERBAUM. Not the whole thing. It is almost impossible for it to operate successfully because of the political angle. Senator YOUNG. What do you mean by that? Mr. BIERBAUM. In 1952 when we were guaranteed the support and there was no limitation on acres, it would have been good politics to slap us down on acreage. Senator YOUNG. Let me interrupt, please. In 1952 we were at war with Korea and the Federal Government asked wheat farmers to increase production. We only had a carry-over on July 1, 1952, of 256 million bushels, low for a nation at war, is that right? Mr. BIERBAUM. It is possible, but our potential, we saw how fast we did it because of that. Senator YOUNG. The Federal Government on the advice of the military asked the farmers to increase production that year. That wasn't politics, was it? Mr. BIERBAUM. Well, we can argue it. Washington was wrong and Arnold was right, that has been said. Senator YOUNG. When the Secretary of Agriculture appeared before this committee at that time I said that the farmers were digging their grave for increasing production, but they would do it because the Federal Government wanted them to. Mr. BIERBAUM. It was profitable. Senator YOUNG. The Congress appropriated money for an education program to get farmers to increase production. Mr. BIERBAUM. We are in trouble but it is not something that calls for drastic action that will get us, that we will regret in years to come. There are automobile dealers quitting, GI's too, and they are not being considered. We are fortunate, the farmers. We are sitting good in years past, we had our credit system, we had our REA, we have had this farm program, we have had the SCS. Percentagewise, we have been faring well compared to some other minority groups. We don't want to sour the population of the entire nation on what we are wanting lest they cut us completely off. Senator THYE. What would you specifically recommend? We have to live of course in a political atmosphere and I hasten to add that you can be very, very thankful that your Government involves politics, because as long as you have us so equally divided in two political groups you are not going to have dictatorship. I can promise you that. Mr. BIERBAUM. I didn't accuse you of it. Senator THYE. So what would you propose that we, as a committee, recommend as appropriate legislation to establish a farm program which will assure parity for agriculture? You just make that recommendation and we won't interrogate you very long. Mr. BIERBAUM. As far as farm support in itself it will not cure our problems. We need them now. But this variable support is a much more logical approach to the thing. We are going to have to aggressively go out and see if we can't sell more locally. That won't be the Government. The Government's part will be to assist us in our foreign trade program. Some things that seem impossible now perhaps if we work hard enough we can get the job done. Here is another thing causing trouble now. We know with the farmer, it is volume, price, and cost. Actually Mr. BIERBAUM. We have our buying but our cost is what is giving us trouble. I am a friend of labor, we are laborers also, but these rapid raises we have had in the last year, especially, 25 cents an hour, their rapid raise and standard of living without corresponding production, will come at the expense of some other standard of living. Let me finish that. We need a fully employed people, but this legislation I am afraid only encouraged that too rapid rise without corresponding production of this last year. Senator THYE. You mean what legislation? Mr. BIERBAUM. This minimum wage law. I think it needs study. That sounds cheap but it was an incentive for the higher brackets. The CHAIRMAN. They increased their wages long before the $1 minimum wage was passed. They did that through the unions. Mr. BIERBAUM. But it is still an incentive. Senator THYE. Your minimum wage is way below the wage that is paid except in some isolated areas or in some smaller segment of your working population. But going back to the farm question, if you can tell us how we can get agriculture up to a higher economic level, then you will do us a service and you will do this group sitting here a service, too. That is what I am concerned with. You have ideas and you just tell them in your own way. Don't worry whether you use a word or two wrong. Mr. BIERBAUM. I have expressed part of it. This variable support is logical. Senator THYE In other words, you think the variable-flexible-support, you think that will get a reduction in the overall agricultural production? Mr. BIERBAUM. It will assist us. Senator THYE. It will? It will bring you down in wheat, will it? Mr. BIERBAUM. There is a big problem. It will take years to do that. This is only part of it. I don't have too much confidence in it. Senator THYE. Will it affect your meat supply, the flexible? Mr. BIERBAUM. To some extent. Senator THYE. How? We have to get the answers, you see. Your flexible does not apply to meat, but it applies to feed grains and if you have an ample supply of feed are you not apt to have an increase in your livestock overall total weight? You can't get an increase in a cow until it calves and you have raised it, but you can get an increase poundage on the hoof, and if you have cheap feeds in abundant supply are you not faced with the possibility that somebody will feed that animal a couple of more months? Mr. BIERBAUM. Definitely, and this thing won't be sweet to swallow. We think the cattle men will be in trouble. Senator THYE. The variable, as you referred to it, means that you vary and go to a lower level as you would come down a stairs. If you vary, you are going to go down another step. Mr. BIERBAUM. Temporarily, yes. Senator THYE. If you go down another step is that going to ultimately take the production out of either oats, barley, or sorghums or corn? Mr. BIERBAUM. Over a long period of time, as you know, our per capita consumption increases and population is increasing. Senator THYE. We cannot wait until 1975. Mr. BIERBAUM. There again your soil bank plan will come into assistance. Senator THYE. Then the soil bank is going to take care of the variable? Mr. BIERBAUM. Not altogether. Senator THYE. I want to conclude. I notice Senator Ellender, and he has reason to be anxious because he has a whole list of witnesses here but, frankly, you have started a thought and your thought is still up in the air, I am try to nail it down. Any way we approach it is perfectly all right. If you vary, and if that is the answer, fine; but I fear that as we vary, we shall get a lot of cheaper feeds, but not a curtailment of acreage, unless you tie that into your program. If you get too much feed, it is going to be fed to the cow or pig or chicken because if it doesn't bring a fair price on the cash market, it will put it through the animal. You and I are together that far, but what do we do to get the farm plant down? Mr. BIERBAUM. Raising them won't help any. Senator THYE. But if a financial squeeze is the result of your variable program, then I am concerned about who it eliminates first. It is not going to eliminate the man with ample credit. Mr. BIERBAUM. There again it is a sad fact about this GI boy. Our population is movable. In the thirties we couldn't move. Senator THYE. You are not going to move too far on an empty pocketbook. Mr. BIERBAUM. You have a potential. We are in the age of electronics and if we cooperate there, our standard of living, there is no limit, many of these boys, maybe including myself, have to get to producing things to raise the standard. There will be less people in |