Mr. IDLER. I am David Idler, from Yuma County, Colo. I was born on a farm there and have put in my 46 years on a farm. I would like to point out to you some of the things that have happened in our area because of the rigid price support on the basic crops, grown in our area and supported by the Department of Agriculture.

Twenty-seven percent of the farmers' income in Colorado comes from supported crops. The other 73 percent is from nonsupported commodities or crops.

By restricting areas to be planted into the supported crops of the area, the farmers are planting their diverted acres into crops that are not restricted in that area but are supported in another area and in turn it is not cutting down on the overall production. Restricting production without cross compliance results in the shifting of production to other areas.

Also by the shifting of crops the farmers have to have additional machinery to plant, cultivate, and harvest the shifted crop, which is an added expense and in turn their net income is less instead of more because it is not an efficient operation. Also, it is not cutting down on the overall production.

There has been a lot of our marginal land, land that is not suitable for farming in our area, plowed up and planted into rigid price supported crops. It is not a profitable operation to farm marginal land but it helps to pile up the surpluses.

High guaranteed profitable prices on the basic crops encourage their planting, reduce their consumption, increase the use of substitutes, lower the exports, and cost the American citizens plenty, and it is my opinion that it does not help the family-sized farmer, because they are farming for rigid price supported crops instead of following a sound land-use program.

In other words, cross compliance with no restrictions on what you plant, but the land that is farmed.,

Senator YOUNG. What do you farm?

Mr. IDLER. I run cattle, I dryland farm and I irrigate a little. Senator YOUNG. Mostly cattle production?

STATEMENT OF W. W. STEEPLES, PALCO, KANS.

Mr. STEEPLES. I am Wallace Steeples from Brooks County, Kans. I think you gentlemen are kind to us to give us this opportunity and I think you must be very happy because most of your problems have been solved this afternoon. You can go back to Washington with the weight off your shoulders.

I would like to call your attention to a statement made earlier in this hearing regarding 100 percent parity on most everything a farmer produces. I would like to say that strict controls mean more power for Government and that means loss of independence. I would like to congratulate the Senator for his question he asked: "Do you think the Government would get this kind of money?" May I suggest you go back to Washington and ask this question over and over again before the Congress?

Government cannot possibly underwrite success for every individual in every line of business. I think farmers here are convinced in their own minds that the principal motive of Government should be to give the greatest possible chance for success with the least possible interference from Government.

I think the American farmer is capable to a great extent of working out many of his own problems and I will take no more of your time. Thank you.

Senator YOUNG. What kind of farmer are you?

Mr. STEEPLES. I am a small farmer of wheat and cattle.
Senator YOUNG. Where?

Mr. STEEPLES. In Brooks County, Kans., dryland area.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Richard Roemer.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD ROEMER, GRAINFIELD, KANS.

Mr. ROEMER. My name is Richard Roemer of Grainfield, Kans. 1 only have one point to bring out and that is the cattle situation. I think that the Goverment should keep out of the cattle program until it is necssary and at the present time I do not think it is necessary that the Government get into any kind of cattle program.

I think the cattlemen are making out at the present time and unless some drastic change comes up I don't think you should get in any cattle program.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(Mr. Roemer's prepared statement follows :)

Thank you for the privilege of meeting with you here in the Wheat Belt of the Great Plains area.

My problem is the wheat program and acreage allotments is the main issue. In 1953 my allotted acres were 36 percent, in 1954, 35 percent, in 1955 (this year) my allotted acres are 33 percent or (broken down in acres) 52 acres on 160 acres (there are others lower). Gentlemen, under this setup that isn't even a good summer fallow practice nor conservation program, which I have tried to follow since farming.

We, who have followed the conservation program and summer fallow practice, have been penalized most by this wheat-allotment program.

I feel that it will not be more than justified that we, of the summer fallow area, be given at least a 50 percent acreage allotment and I'm sure that this would help reduce the dust-storm problem. We know that there are farmers of other parts that are seeding over 80 percent and do not care to seed that percent.

Also, I believe a quality wheat program will automatically take care of the surplus wheat in due time.

High price supports will not take care of our surplus problem, it will only increase our surplus, unless we produce a quality wheat that the millers and foreign markets are asking for. Good wheat is a product most used by the people of the world. Poor quality wheat is a product best used for livestock production and should be taken from Government storage and should be fed accordingly where it is found to be of that quality.

As to the cattle situation, let's keep it out of the Government program. But let's be ready for a floor and program in case of a sudden disaster that might ruin the Nation's meat supply.

I believe a ceiling price on farm machinery may be necessary if the farm price squeeze gets any worse.

We of the Great Plains area know that there are many problems and feel that you are trying to do your best. Thank you for being able to appear on this committee.

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL J. HILL, GREELEY, COLO.

Mr. HILL. I am Russell J. Hill, Greeley, Colo. I farm a small irrigated farm of 50 acres, manage 160 additional acres, land is irrigated or partially so.

My prepared speech dealt with a major premise that most of our problems were caused by surpluses and you asked for the answers and we have tried in our thinking to get answers for that. This is only a partial opinion because we haven't thought it through carefully, but here is the best we have thought of so far.

First, any agricultural program designed to reduce surpluses and bring supplies into effective demand must develop mandatory_controls on a national level and cover all basic supported crops at least. This authority by congressional action is vested in the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture.

More than discretionary authority in enforcement of cross-compliance provisions of the present law may be needed to control surpluses.

I offer a suggestion, a plan, as applied to wheat. I think the commodity has been well discussed today.

First, national acreage needed to supply our needs determined each year by the Secretary of Agriculture, establish national allotments broken down by States, counties, and individual farms.

Second, national marketing quotas established by the same process as acreage allotments.

Third, overplanting of allotments, allotted acres would not be penalized financially but wheat produced in excess of restricted quota must be stored on farms and not allowed to be sold or stored in Government storage. That excess wheat could be sold the next year in event of drought to fill his restricted marketing quota on acreage allotment. Fourth, withdrawing excessive acres from production under longtime lease, paying rental on that acreage, crops grown used for soilbuilding purposes only.

The advantages of this plan are it gives more freedom to the individual farmers in managing their own business, it creates good will and desire to cooperate for the common good without penalties, the farmer operates within his own marketing quota to finance his own needs.

Third, it discourages overproduction in that the farmer must provide his own storage on the farm.

Fourth, it is in the interest of better government to fix maximum' responsibility for decisions in the individual farmer with the greatest freedom in choice possible, rather than concentrating more power in the Federal Government. Motivated by his own best self-interest and by that of his fellow farmers, think what our American farmers could do in helping this Senate Agriculture Committee and the Secretary of Agriculture in improving our farm markets.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(Mr. Hill's prepared statement follows:)

Our expansion of crops due to high-fixed wartime prices extended into a period of peace is one big cause of our present trouble. Too high a price for wheat caused 2 million acres of Colorado rangeland to be plowed up. Now we are trying to keep these soils from blowing away until we can get them back into grass. A rotation of winter wheat, grain sorghums, summer fallow, followed by wheat or range grasses is being tried to help this situation. It is a program

to reduce wheat surpluses, expand feed crops, control wind erosion and get marginal lands back into grass.

Production above export and domestic demand piles up in wheat, corn, sugar, rice, cotton, pork, and fats to depress farm income. Commodity Credit Corporation owns $7 billion in farm surplus. Borrowing authority of CCC was extended by the last Congress from $10 billion to $12 billion. With surpluses nearly equaling the income of all farmers in the United States, we do have a surplus disposal problem. No general farm price improvement can be expected as long as this trend continues.

It does little good to assure farmers "we have no real surplus," or that by 1962 population growth will catch up with present rate of production, or that Government expenditures for airplanes cost so much more we can afford this much for agriculture, or that a long-continued drought, or that a possible war will wipe out this surplus. Farmers want to know how to earn adequate incomes before 1962.

Price improvement for farm products is a major consideration in strengthening farm income. Alert farmers are farming more acres, more intensively trying to lower their unit costs and increase their labor incomes. In a drought year cabbage brings the grower $30 per ton and onions bring $2 per hundred pounds. A reduced supply brings a higher price. Potato growers with marketing agreements divert undergrade spuds to livestock feeding and get some price improvement. Producers of beef and poultry scored gains in consumer preference in our markets.

How to reduce production to our demand is our problem. Most farmers I have interviewed feel that continued high, fixed prices on Government-supported crops build up surplus problems and add to our price declines. Few want to take off all supports, fearing the sudden adjustment might be too severe. Others think our Government encouraged overexpansion of farm production and, therefore, it should lead in any program designed to adjust supplies to demand. So far, most opinions favor the diverted acres, soil fertility bank or percentage of output cutback as a method of reducing surpluses. How to pay farmers for reducing production in surplus is the difficult question to answer. It seems more logical to save the farmer's cost and land fertility on crops not now needed than to buy up the surplus after it is harvested. A cost of 500 million or a billion dollars for diversion may prove cheaper than 21⁄2 to 3 billion yearly increase in stored products, which may be dumped later at half price. With this method enough product could be withheld from the market so that some of the stored surplus would move into trade channels. These sales in turn could be used to help finance the product diversion program, or repay loans when less storing is needed.

Frankly, I think the trend of agricultural policy toward expanding farm surpluses needs to be reversed. A farm population deprived of profit opportunities by the weight of burdensome surpluses which hold down farm prices, can lose its economic freedom. The next step after rigid price supports is rigid allotments of acreages or total product, the allocation of markets, and Government distribution of the right to produce. Most desirable goals can be achieved under our present flexible pricing program if it is given a chance to operate in 1956 and later. Surpluses accumulated over many years cannot be absorbed overnight. Prejudging the present program without a fair trial by urging immediate return to fixed supports at 90 percent of parity appeals more to prejudice of voters than to their sound thinking.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. GOODIER, WILD HORSE, COLO.

Mr. GOODIER. My name is John A. Goodier from Colorado. I am engaged in ranching on a 1,280-acre ranch and raise hay. Practically everything I had to say has been pretty well covered, but I wanted to go into this Government lease on surplus land a little bit.

I think it is regarding this Government leasing of cropland I feel it is fair to reason that where the Government has contributed to our burdensome surpluses through supports in the years prior to now-I might say in there I had flexible and rigid and the like but that has been covered thoroughly today, but the supports caused the surplus in my reasoning.

It would be reasonable to suggest that the Government could institute a cropland lease system whereby payments could be made to the farmers in return for removal of a percentage of their croplands from cultivation for a period of, say, 5 years or until more land is needed in cultivation after extreme surpluses have disappeared. Out in my country, southeastern Colorado, there is perhaps as much as 25 percent of the land in wheat farming sequences that is unsuitable for profitable cultivation even in normal years, but which have been plowed up and cropped by farmers anxious to take advantage of the high supports during the years following the start of the Korean war.

Senator THYE. I would like to ask a question at this point for the reason that I introduced a bill this last session that has as its objective taking some of this submarginal or arid land out of production or out of cropping because of the hazard it is from the standpoint of wind erosion with dust-blowing.

Now, the reason I wanted to ask you this question was simply this: Is there a possibility of getting that land back into grass unless the Federal Government assists?

Mr. GOODIER. I will go down a little further and give my thought. Senator THYE. When they plowed up that land, in many cases there was a specific request on the part of the Government to get that land into production because we did not have enough grair because we couldn't get enough alcohol which is used in processing synthetic rubber, and because we were scraping the barrel in our attempt to get enough grain to meet the war needs. So I was curious to know whether you were going to cover the question and that was why I interrupted you.

Mr. GOODIER. I will state at this time, Senator, tht the type of land I have reference to is pretty much adobe base. Bore it was broken up there would be 10 square feet fairly well sodde, over and 3 square feet an adobe patch that nothing did grow on.

Senator THYE. Does that land produce good wheat?

Mr. GOODIER. No. I can give you a specific example. In 1948 there were 1,200 acres broken up in one patch on the border of Cheyenne and Lincoln, 140 miles east of Denver. The never was a spear of wheat that could even be grown on that lai and it has been abandoned because it was a bankrupting propesion for the corporation farmer.

Mr. SNYDER. Should the Government rent that land?

Mr. GOODIER. I think the Government should lease land from the operators still existing.

Senator THYE. Do they plow it annually?

Mr. GOODIER. That particular piece of land gave me the 10 that during that 5-year period of Government lease that that ground be untouched, let nature restore it to the native grasses which it is doi on these 1,200 acres.

Senator THYE. Is there a danger if that is not done that the lands would be a source of duststorms that would threaten other lands? Mr. GOODIER. The danger lies in the fields that are being operated, not in the fields that are idle.

Senator THYE. In other words, if you have 1,200 acres that has no vegetation and is permitted to drift as sand, with one shifting wind and another, it can cut out lands lying adjacent.