trol the bigger farmer. A limitation loan and subsidies of $20,000 to any 1 individual partnership or corporation in any 1 year.

Legislature last year passed themselves an increase in pay, but they do not think of the small farmer. If the farmers are the backbone of the country, why not see to it that they get a decent living?

Prosperity in labor is the cause of much of the inflation. General prosperity around the world has swelled the demand for cars, refrigerators, TV sets and other things of metal that men want. While opposing and reducing farm price supports the administration is supporting and boosting the prices of metals and other so-called strategic materials by buying and storing huge quantities.

In contrast with the farm product storage system, which operates in the open, everything in the strategic stockpile program-including the amounts bought, the prices paid out of the taxpayers' pockets, and who gets these vast subsidies is hidden from the public as a defense secret. Copper at 36 cents a pound is its highest since World War I, when it was 37 cents for a short time. World War II price was fixed at 12 cents a pound.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF GLENN DROSSELMEYER, TWO BUTTES, COLO.

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. Gentlemen, I am Glenn Drosselmeyer, farmer from Two Buttes, Colo. It is doubtful this meeting would have been called had it not been the major difficulty confronting farmers today. I feel surpluses and what created them is our No. 1 issue. So if that is our main topic, let's figure out some of the reasons why this exists and what to do about it.

Do we need more merchandising of products? Is it too many acres? Is it modern irrigation plus fertilizer plus the finest modern equipment that has helped overdo the job? Could it be that we have done too good a job of educating the people of our foreign lands or maybe we have defeated one of the major goals we have been striving for for several decades, and that is to educate our farmers to the most modern ways and means of doing the job.

All these things have no doubt helped build up surpluses, but I feel that our rigid prices are responsible for some of it.

Personally I am a small-grain farmer and would like to have just. as much for my commodity as I could possibly get out of it without injury to my fellow men. With high supports we seem to have only 1 buyer and 1 seller, the Commodity Credit Corporation. Along with this we encourage grain dealers to expand their storage facilities and during this boom of rigid supports we have done a nice job paying for this business at our expense.

This summer the first time in 6 years we harvested several thousand bushels of wheat from our ranch which is just an average farm in our county, consisting of about 1,700 acres, all in cultivation. I want to say this: We farmers out there feel that we haven't helped build the surplus of wheat from our own ranch due to weather conditions, but when I hauled this grain to market this summer, deep down inside felt as if I were taking candy from a kid, because I knew they didn't need that wheat any more than the 6 kings of the Holy Land needed those 6 pyramids built for them to live in years ago.

I believe we nearly all agree from experience that this program hasn't worked by any means satisfactory, so let's look for new ideas. Personally, I feel the soil-bank solution might be one step in the right direction at least for several years until we get our surpluses down or wiped out. Along with this I believe we should make some changes in our laws as to how we should dispose of these surpluses, and then employ some good salesmen.

Also we need to extend our research on how to consume more of our own products, both here at home and abroad. We have heard lots of good about the two-price system similar to what Canada has. Having been to a wheat meeting at Fargo last year, I got some firsthand material on their problems. Before going up there I was pretty well sold on the two-price system, but after mingling for several days with some of those farmers I found out they had more problems to contend with on their program than we did. They have bushel control and not acreage control. They had plenty of wheat at home and some of the fellows there even had certificates enabling them to sell a certain amount of wheat, but they couldn't find a buyer. We farmers have got to learn to operate our business, or so-called farms, in the same keen way as the man in the city has to compete with. I thank you.

Senator YOUNG. You stated you believed rigid supports was largely responsible for our surplus. What do you think is responsible for the big surplus of wheat in Canada? In comparison to size they have a bigger surplus than we have.

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. From what I gathered up there talking to the boys at Fargo, right from Canada, they are free to raise all the wheat they want to but they have it and it seems as though they can't find a buyer to take their wheat when they get ready to sell. This fellow said, "I have a certificate for 2,000 bushels." He said "I can't get rid of it because I can't find a buyer."

He said, "In fact, I have a lot of harvest expenses and for the last several years I have had a rough time selling enough wheat to the buyer to pay my harvest expenses. He said, "I think I will quit raising wheat. I have to. In fact, I have no more facilities at home for it." I was under the impression they had done a great deal of exporting, but evidently they didn't.

Maybe I didn't answer your question.

Senator YOUNG. Of course, the Canadians produce a high-quality wheat and they have a variable-price-support program that can go practically from nothing to 100 percent parity. Since it did not solve surplus problems in Canada, why do you think variable supports will solve our problem?

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. I don't feel it will. I feel the soil-bank situation is better. I would rather leave part of my 1,700 acres out and sacrifice it for some time until we get this down. I will get along somehow. I am not going to tell you that but I will get by if I have to bootleg, I guess. I am willing to sacrifice part of my 1.700 acres. I haven't stayed in the program the last 3 years, I sowed every bit. I went all the way. My allotment is 640 acres on 1,700. I put all 1,700 acres out last year. It so happened with wind and lack of moisture I wound up with my exact figure of 640. That was an act of God. I went to 1,200 acres this year hoping to get down to my allotment again. In the western country most of us figure our major problem is raising the

product rather than selling it. If we can raise it we will prorate it out as mentioned early this morning.

My sole purpose when I planted that was not to put a bit of wheat. out this year. I was just-in the year 1955-I wasn't going to harvest a bit in the 1956 crop if I harvested all of this in 1954. So in other words, I was on the bushel problem rather than the acreage problem in reality. It does grow from bushels to acres if you follow through. FROM the FLOOR. Mr. Chairman, will you ask if he had crop insurance?

How can he get away with it when we can't?

Senator THYE. I would like to ask the gentleman one or two questions, if I may.

You said you planted all your acreage and you wound up with 640 acres?

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. 640 acres.

Senator THYE. You wound up with 640 acres out of the total 1,700 acres?

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. Yes, sir.

Senator THYE. Did you have crop insurance that protected you on the other?

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. Yes, I had crop insurance last year but on the other hand you can see where I got caught. I got caught in this squeeze. Senator THYE. But the question is, if you planted your total number of acres, were you in compliance?

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. Yes, I was in compliance for the simple reason I planted them for cover crop.

Senator THYE. Your statement didn't so indicate, and that is what left me in doubt as to what you had been trying to tell us. That is why I asked these questions because I knew you could not be in compliance if you harvested your total acres.

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. Let me explain to you a few things very shortly on that. We were allowed to plant cover crop over our allotted acres. I could plant everything from 640 up to 1,700 acres.

Senator THYE. In wheat?

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. Into wheat, barley, rye or anything.

Senator THYE. Wheat is all I am concerned with because you had to be in compliance on that.

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. That is right.

Senator THYE. You planted your whole 1700 acres to wheat?
Mr. DROSSELMEYER. Yes.

Senator THYE. You planted it all to wheat?

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. Yes.

Senator THYE. And you remained within compliance?

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. That is correct.

Senator THYE. When were the measurements taken?

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. In the spring after our wheat had been plowed down and up to the 640 acres.

Senator THYE. Then you had the choice of going about your farm and determining just what piece was worth leaving and what piece. was not, and you plowed that down and then took your crop insurance plus? You see, you had both the cake and the opportunity of eating it.

Mr. DROSSELMEYER. No, the crop insurance wasn't plus; it was a minus. I paid for that.

(NOTE. Mr. Drosselmeyer subsequently informed the committee that his crop insurance applied only to his 640 acres of wheat under allotment.)

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND F. ROEMER, GRAINFIELD, KANS.

Mr. ROEMER. I am Raymond Roemer, a farmer and rancher from Gove County, one of the western counties of the State of Kansas. A lot of the points I had listed here have been covered so I am not going to hit upon them.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope every witness does the same thing. I want to hear everybody here. Give us something new.

Mr. ROEMER. I am going to make some brief statement as to recommendations in regard to the wheat farmer's situation of western Kansas. I am not smart enough to know all the other situations of the United States and the world. Briefly, we think that we have been pinched on our acre allocations and that is one of our bitter pills. So I am going to make the following recommendations and the first one that I am going to make has to do with quality. When I talk about quality I am not talking about 60-pound wheat free from bugs. I am talking about wheat that is a milling wheat that can be used in human consumption. I believe and I would recommend that the Government give consideration on their loans and their subsidies to wheat that is fit for human consumption and not wheat used only for feed.

Now, due to our environmental conditions of the high plains area we are sure we can raise that quality wheat, and we believe we can raise a quality product that can be sold abroad in competition with Canadian wheat and other wheat. We further think that if we aren't discriminated against as to acres that we can raise a product that will meet the United States demand. I am making another recommendation and that is the farmer be responsible for the storage and maintenance of this premium product. I would recommend that these storage facilities that are now under Government supervision, these steel bins you see along the highways and railroads, I would recommend those be transferred to farmsteads and that those be put over into the authority or under the authority of the farmer so he can use them to take care of what surpluses he may have.

Bear in mind I am thinking of the western Kansas wheat farmer and I realize the problem is immense but with a quality program we would probably eliminate a lot of our other wheat farmers who are not producing for the food market.

I would recomend that those bins, if we do not have enough to go around, be made available at a low rate of interest-that is, that the farmer could supply the needs at a low rate. I realize we have a program along that line now. But it presents a problem when our eastern neighbors drive by on the highway and see these facilities and even though many are empty they are inclined to believe they are full at the expense of the Government.

Now that would be my recommendation on wheat. The acreage we are planting to milo as a diverted acreage although we are limited by rainfall to about 18 inches and that isn't enough often for milo, we are limited on our diverted acres to about one crop, combine milo, developed in the last few years. Combine milo is very good for feed

ing cattle and I being a cattleman as well as a wheat farmer, I can about consume what I raise by feeding my own livestock and the livestock, the calves I raise, feeding them out on a deferred feeder program.

In fact, this year due to the drought I find myself in a squeeze where I will have to buy milo. I think that could be worked out in our area, if we weren't sort of hampered by our Government restrictions. Our acreage allocations, they drop one year and add another and it gradually pinched us until now out of a hundred acres most of the farmers in my area are planting 30 acres and they have 70 acres to find another use for.

The wind blows and we have dust and it is a problem. I would make another recommendation: We are in a cost-price squeeze and in 1947 I got out of the Navy after 4 years and I think I know a little bit about these veterans' problems, too. Had I not had a pretty good banker I probably would not have been able to survive as well as I have, but in 1947 a John Deere one-way sold for approximately $600. That same one-way is selling for $900 now. No changes.

In 1947 a combine, self-propelled, $4,200, now it is $5,600. Those things are the things that are putting the squeeze on me, the things and services I have to buy. I would recommend although I know it is going to be rough because there are a lot more labormen than farmers, I am not advocating they be discriminated against, but I believe these continued rises in labor costs are causing a balance of economy to be, changing the balance and labor is getting ahead of us too far.

Had it been held and these raises not have been given perhaps we could have been more on a parity as we moved along. That is in brief what I have to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(Mr. Roemer's prepared statement follows:)

This report expresses the views of my own but are pretty much the situation of the area of Gove County and of western Kansas.

Our main cash crop is hard winter wheat; so it is this crop that I am going to discuss first.

Our present program has given support to wheat but the loan does not make any mention of what more is required. This has given the farmer of wheat in all areas the same price pretty much for the commodity. Secondly, the shift of acres from the areas of summer fallow to continuous cropping has caused our surpluses to continue to grow even with the decrease in acre allocations for the Nation. With high supports the farmers of many areas have found it more profitable to raise wheat than the several other crops that he has a choice of raising should the price be favorable.

I would make the following recommendations:

1. That quality of gluten be the basis for allocation of acres and that if the law of supply and demand does not give the wheat farmer parity and subsidy have to be used, that this support be on the basis of milling quality of the wheat.

2. That wheat that does not meet these standards as are necessary to provide for a baker product be supported at a level no higher than its equivalent in feed grains.

3. That storage facilities in the form of steel and wood structures located along the railways, be moved to the farmsteads where they can become the responsibility of the farmer. These facilities can provide for the storage of excess grain which the farmer should be responsible for.

Because of the environmental conditions of the high plains area, it is not possible for the farmers to raise many substitute crops. When he is unable to plant wheat he can go to combine milo to a limited extent and this is about the limit except for some small irrigated acres and bottom land areas where alfalfa and