agriculture 10 years from now than now. If we try to have a plan that will keep an inefficient unit, pardon the word, I don't know a better word to use, 160-acre farm, you know the price of machinery, you can't exist.

Senator THYE. You are only applying it to your neighborhood, not to the United States.

Mr. BIERBAUM. That would vary to 30 or 40 in the East.

Senator THYE. But you are only applying it to your own region, but in the main you could not apply the thing nationwide.

Mr. BIERBAUM. The units will have to enlarge with the cost. I am afraid I haven't made myself clear.

(Mr. Bierbaum's prepared statement follows:)

First I would like to make a few general statements about the present farm problems.

There has been far too much emotional talk and rabble-rousing shouting about our farm problem. We farmers are in trouble, but it is not a crisis that demands radical Government intervention for which we will pay a dear price a few years hence.

A few constructive thoughts of my neighbors and mine are these: Government is not a consumer of our products. Therefore Government price supports will not solve our problem, we are paying a dear price now for the high supports a few years back, a support for a number of years may be necessary, to help us out of the present problem. A variable support program is a more logical approach to the problem.

Every farmer knows there are three important factors affecting his operation, volume, price, and cost, past Government policies have caused us farmers to lose our volume to expansion of production in other countries and to substitutes, etc. Cost, and this really is our headache. There is hardly a person that doesn't receive a Government check. And brother that means taxes.

Senators, can't you do something about that?

We do in our farming. Wages are a very big part of our cost. This is not a slap at labor. We farmers are laborers also. Last year wages took a big jump without increased production in most cases. And that hit the farmers hard. For in this case the rapid advance of the standard of living of this group can only be gained by reducing the standard of living of another. Next time, Senators, be careful of wage legislation. It does make good material for speeches, but it only aggravated our problem.

Back to some of the evils of the 90 percent price support. Fifteen years ago we had to go to Salina, Newton, or Wichita to see those huge cement silos for wheat storage, now almost every station along the central branch of the M. P. looks like a grain terminal. Our local Co-op of which I am a member has been building one of these almost every year, to date we have about a million bushel storage, it's full to the top, next year if we raise wheat we will have to build another if we want room for our wheat. All this, plus bin sites at nearly every burg. If this building up of surpluses continues the farmers will eventually become subjects of the State.

In my study of the problem we farmers are paying more than our share of the price of our State Department's foreign program. Let us be permitted to aggressively go out after this foreign market. I don't mean give it away. What are you gentlemen doing to encourage this market?

We have the oldest and one of the largest co-op creameries in the State, Washington County Co-op Creamery. I was talking to the manager and some of the directors lately about our dairy problem. They all feel well pleased with the success of the self-help program, producers were putting out a better quality product. Consumers were increasing their consumption of butter, cheese and milk, less is going into Government storage, but he said, according to all the ballyhoo we have been hearing of late, next year we are going to get into the same mess we were in 2 years ago, back to high support, consumers turn to the other foods, and dairy products back into Government storage.

Diverted acres are causing a hardship on unprotected crop, milo truck farming, etc.

The soil bank plan might be an answer till we work out from under our surpluses.

In conclusion the answer is not Government support at profitable prices. Yes, we need Government help to get us out of the present mess. But the only lasting help will be self help. The family farm must of necessity become larger, promotion of sales at home and abroad, and many more smaller things. Neither do we want to exist on a dole. My memory of WPA days are all too clear, for they merely existed, with no incentive to advance.

We farmers don't want to sell our heritage for a mess of potage.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Arnold.

STATEMENT OF ELMER ARNOLD, ROZEL, KANS.

Mr. ARNOLD. I am Elmer Arnold, Rozel, Kans. I think we could leave the same program we have in and try to improve it. Several things to be improved on this new program to close up the loopholes could be done. There is a certain percent of people that will try to get every little bit of acre or every bushel. I think in this large country it would make a difference. I think we should have crosscompliance. You take the boys in the South. They have taken out cotton and tobacco, went to legumes and grass and they raise more cattle. After all, isn't cattle volume about 50 percent of our income? Somebody will get hurt. No way around it. Some of these big wheat farmers overseas probably make more money than the fellow who stays in compliance and cuts down his acre.

The CHAIRMAN. We will put your statement in the record and you can proceed in your own way.

(Mr. Arnold's prepared statement follows:)

Let's leave the present farm program with a minimum of Federal controls for awhile longer and try to improve it.

Rigid price supports at 90 percent of parity were established during the war years to encourage production. But Congress failed to let the flexible price support plan of the law go into effect after the war demands were reduced. So we have our surpluses.

The present program could be improved in many instances. We should have cross-compliance on all controlled crops. There is no use taking one crop out of production and planting some other crop that has a surplus.

Maybe we should take some of the land out of production and start a soil fertility bank.

We wheat farmers hold up the wheat market by cutting down production. A large wheat farmer can overplant and pay a penalty on county average and no penalty on over county average. The penalty should double each year he overseeds. There is no use in having these minus 15-acre wheat farmers. There should be a maximum payment that any farmer could receive. Each owner of land should be kept in a single unit.

Does everyone have plenty to eat? Are our distribution and transportation systems of food and fiber as efficient as they should be? We should look for more markets at home and abroad.

The work of Congress in passing Public Law 480 was very good and they should be praised for it and all other means to move our surplus to where it is needed and not to a bin site.

I think we should have less subsidies from the Government. I mean postal, rail, airlines and all other.

Let's quit saying labor is getting too much wages "because they are our largest consumers of food" and say industries are getting too much profit. Is there uo way Congress can put a ceiling on their profit?

The farmers would like to have that Federal gas tax exempt on nonhighway gasoline.

All 48 States and our Federal Government have passed laws providing for cooperative organizations. Congress has passed the Capper-Volstead Act in 1922 and the Marketing Act in 1929. These two acts are laws to help the farmers to help themselves.

The first co-op oil refinery in the world was started here in Kansas. I think we could help ourselves more if we would patronize our own organizations from local to international levels.

Mr. ARNOLD. I think each landowner should be kept in a single unit. You get a lot more production by having joint compliance.

I would like to say I don't think everybody has enough to eat. I am sure lots of people are hungry in the United States and in the world. I wonder if we couldn't improve our transportation and distribution system. That is up to our National Government.

We should have a little less subsidy all over the segment of the United States, airlines and things like that. If we had a project and it didn't make a profit our banker would tell us to change it. Let's quit saying labor is getting too much wages because they are our largest consumers of food and let's say industry is getting too much profit. Cut down the cost a little bit, I think the farmers would like to have the Federal gas tax exempt from nonhighway gas.

Senator THYE. Senator Carlson has a bill in the Senate right now proposing to remove the Federal gas tax on gas used in agricultural operation.

Mr. ARNOLD. One other thing I have here: All 48 States and Federal Government has passed laws to provide for cooperative organizations. Congress passed the Capper-Volstead Act in 1922 and marketing acts of 1929. These two acts are laws to help farmers to help themselves.

The first co-op oil refinery in the world started here in Kansas. We would help ourselves more if we patronize our own organization. Therefore, I think we should work for a program with a minimum of controls, more markets, better diet, and larger net income to the farmers.

STATEMENT OF B. W. ROEPKE, BARNES, KANS.

Mr. ROEPKE. I am B. W. Roepke. I own and operate a 320-acre farm. So many of the things I have in the written statement have already been mentioned so I will confine it to particularly one thing.

The idea of the soil fertility bank I feel should be explored fully. I have noticed that the cost of such a program would be quite high but I have never heard it mentioned that if you would consider the cost of buying and storing these surplus crops that are not needed so that cost must also be added to the soil elements and fertility that go into those crops, which is using up our soil resources that must also be added to the cost of storing and producing excess crops.

If you take the cost of what it might take to establish a soil fertility bank and from that cost I feel you would be able to deduct the benefits of storing that fertility in the soil for future use and perhaps if this were done the soil fertility bank idea may not be as costly as we first think.

Also I am much concerned, as a speaker shortly before me has said, agriculture has been living in a very favorable political climate. We have had public sentiment in our favor and I am fearful we will lose that if we go ahead. I feel that the public sentiment will favor a program such as this much longer and more charitably because it has a lot. of merit. Our soil is a resource that belongs to all our people. They have a concern that it be preserved. I think it is the job of Government to conserve it.

Not only does our soil belong to the people living now but belongs to the generations still unborn. It is the duty I believe of Government to look out for the future as well as for the present. I would like to drop that thought.

I think primarily that is the thing I wanted to get across that has not been mentioned and perhaps adds to this idea of the soil fertility bank. In my particular operation I have always wished that we might have some system that would allow each farmer to take out, it is an overall problem, if they could take out a certain percent out of production. For instance, in my farm if my share of overall production is 20 percent too much, if I could take 20 percent of that crop acre out, I could do with the rest what I wished to do, then I would have freedom of farming operations I would like. If that would operate to solve the problem I certainly would feel that it would operate within a freedom of movement and free competition that I would very much enjoy.

I think I speak the feeling of a good many progressive farmers when I make that statement.

The CHAIRMAN. For any acres you agree to set aside, you would expect a return from the Government, would you not?

Mr. ROEPKE. I am more or less setting a principle in implementing the particularities of the program. It has been mentioned that something needs to be done to supplement farm income. That would be one way you could bring to the farmer who is complying with a program that I believe the public will support.

The CHAIRMAN. Add that as you would soil conservation?
Mr. ROEPKE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Post.

STATEMENT OF OTIS S. POST, INDEPENDENCE, KANS.

Mr. PosT. Mr. Chairman, I am Otis Post, Independence, Kans. I am a farmer. I live in Montgomery County and I feel that agriculture is probably in a crisis, but not in the state that we need to be alarmed in the next few days, but it will take a long time to get us out of the kinks, so to speak.

We find population in farming areas decreasing, which has been going on ever since the industrial revolution. I don't feel the Government should have a lot of programs to subsidize a farmer because of the expense. I also feel that a man who likes to farm farms because he likes it. I don't feel that the Government should be in the subsidizing business to keep people in farming who want to farm on a small scale and not contribute to the overall food and fiber of their country.

About 8 percent, I believe, contribute to the food and fiber group and if they are in a dire circumstance I have no solution, maybe, but in my idea on that particular problem it is to have a 2-price system and for that 6 percent that is on the marginal farms, let our Government help in creating or establishing industry in these localities where these part-time farmers and these people who are marginal farmers with low incomes can supplement their income until our national competitive form of Government and our economic system will let part of that group increase their unit to a size which will be able to keep them in a good standard of living or keep them in the economic system. The CHAIRMAN. What kind of industry would you suggest?

Mr. PosT. There are several industries that we could probably introduce in some areas such as our defense plants, and our little jobs of maybe wings or condensers or coils being manufactured, if we could decentralize industry.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean that operated by the Government? Mr. POST. They are I think subsidized by the Government. It is a defense program. But in the overall picture this country became great because it did have industry and it does take less people on the farm so there are more people that can produce goods for a good standard of living.

The CHAIRMAN. That industry that made our country great has been operated by private enterprise.

Mr. POST. That is what I am interested in, but the Government has encouraged through war contracts and so on and I hope it doesn't keep on forever so they can encourage it, they are encouraging REA, I think that program could probably be worked out.

Then I feel that this other 8 percent should have a 2-price system because we are living in an organized society of labor, manufactured goods, the price is set, retailers have a fair trade law passed by our Government, and I feel that agriculture has a right to a full parity on those things that are consumed domestically.

I also feel that in our surplus problem that we have riding our back today, 30 or 40 percent is usable and the rest could be sold as feed or even though the corn men will holler, it will take time, somebody has to give and take in this program because it is a large program that covers a lot of States. We could encourage that surplus to be moved at whatever price the world will pay for it. We do have 105 percent subsidy or price maybe on our surplus, but we are going to have to lose money somehow because we took a lot of licking on our storage.

Why not cut the limb off now and heal the wound? I want to sell our surplus that these farms produced without cost to the Government and the farmer get it back just exactly what it brought on the world market but I want the price pegged at 100 percent parity until agriculture can work out of this surplus problem and then let supply and demand take over.

I feel that in our system of acreage or soil conservation bank that if the Government pays a man on a small farm what it would be worth to take those acres out of production he has curtailed his income to where he will be in worse shape than he was before. If he increases or if he pays that on a large farmer he will be giving him income he could probably get along without.

I feel if we are going to take acreage out of production until we get this program started of two prices, which we have in everything else, we should be able to use controls until we get the thing back into workable order. I believe that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF DAYTON YODER, CONWAY, KANS.

Mr. YODER. I am Dayton Yoder. I come from Conway, Kans. I am happy to have this privilege to testify before you Senators today. Two of you I know quite well. I will restrain my remarks entirely to the wheat problem.

64440-56-pt. 5-6