adversely affect the parity equivalent price for the next 10 years-unless some adjustment is made to stabilize the meaning of the word as expressed in dollars and cents paid farmers.

ON SELF-HELP

Dairy farmers have developed a self-help plan for stabilizing their own prices. The self-help plan, as it is known, was worked out by the many dairy cooperatives which are members of the National Milk Producers Federation. There are three principal reasons for our development and support of the selfhelp plan:

1. Dairy farmers are convinced that the support level of 75 percent of parity is too low for the good of the industry and the Nation. At the same time, the Department of Ariculture has stood fast in its position that it can only support prices at levels that assure an adequate supply of milk. Although we do not agree that this is the only standard for support levels that is authorized by the Agricultural Act of 1949, we have been unable to do much about it.

2. Early in 1953 when the Secretary of Agriculture last supported prices at 90 percent of parity, he requested the industry to work out its own program for stabilizing prices. We believed he meant it.

3. Most of the adverse publicity aimed at discrediting the price-support program, regardless of party in power, has been centered on the dairy industry. This has not made it easy to increase the consumption of milk and dairy products.

Under the self-help plan dairy farmers would stabilize their own prices by buying otherwise unmarketable surpluses, and disposing of them at home and abroad without the restrictions inherent in Government operations. The costs would be borne by dairy farmers themselves through the payment of a stabilization fee collected against all milk sold in commercial channels. The program would be operated by a 15-man stabilization board appointed by the President from nominees selected by milk producers.

A summary of the self-help plan has been developed by the National Milk Producers Federation which we feel may be helpful to the committee. The plan has been submitted to Congress as H. R. 2686 (Westland), H. R. 3400 (Bow), H. R. 3483 (St. George), and S. 930 (Mundt). We believe that this legislation merits the support of this committee. Its adoption would be a forward step toward bringing about permanent improvement in the economic conditions of dairy farmers, outside the influence of partisan politics.

ON IMPORT QUOTAS

This country is committed to a high standard of living, to high wage rates, and to an agricultural program under which the prices received by farmers are related to the cost of the things that farmers buy. This means that the domestic prices of agricultural products are in many cases substantially above world price levels.

As long as these conditions exist, effective import controls will be needed to prevent foreign production from impairing or destroying domestic industry. Also, some form of adjustment-such as export subsidies-will be needed to permit American production to compete in world markets. Imports must be stepped up from the world level to the domestic level, and exports must be stepped down from the domestic level to the world level.

Dairy products provide an effective illustration of this need. The support price for butter in New York is 584 cents per pound. This is designed to return to farmers only 75 percent of parity (approximately 80 percent computed under a new administrative formula of the Department of Agriculture). Hourly returns to dairy farmers and their families, as reported by the Department of Agriculture, are down to almost 50 cents per hour. At the same time, the world price for butter is about 39 to 41 cents per pound. Practically no butter has been moved in foreign trade at Commodity Credit Corporation's export price of 41 cents, and very little is moving on a bid basis at 39 cents. With such a disparity in price, it is obvious that domestic agricultural programs would be quickly destroyed if effective import controls were not provided. It is equally obvious that a price adjustment must be made before domestic production can compete in world trade. This does not mean that unfair trade practices should be used or that our surpluses should be dumped abroad, but it does mean that competitive world prices should be met effectively

through a two-price system, export subsidies, or some other form of export price adjustment.

It is vitally important to the dairy industry of this country that section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act remain unimpaired and that effective import controls be provided.

The foregoing comments are in line with the position of the National Milk Producers Federation. We are members of that organization and have participated with other dairy farmers from other parts of the country in discussing these problems and in developing these policies.

SPECIAL SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM

During the summer of 1954 one of the serious concerns of Members of Congress, the dairy farmers, and other segments of the dairy industry was the accumulation of dairy products by the Commodity Credit Corporation and sliding dairy farmer income. It was a situation that impelled the Congress to consider legislative action. It was natural that a widening of markets should be sought, and that Congress should look to increased consumption of fluid milk by schoolchildren as one of the best ways of accomplishing this end.

We commend the Congress for its farsightedness in authorizing $50 million for last year and $50 million for the current year for the special school milk program. The success of the program already has been established, with thousands of schools and schoolchildren participating in the program and with substantial increases in milk consumption by schoolchildren during the last school year.

The outlook for the program this year is for participation by more schools, and more children, with greater increases in milk consumption. We urge the Congress to authorize, on a permanent basis, the use of Commodity Credit Corporation funds for this program in an amount necessary to reach the objective set by the Congress.

SURPLUS DISPOSAL PROGRAMS

We believe that the donation of dairy products from Commodity Credit Corporation's inventory to schools, institutions, and welfare families in this country and the disposition of these products to needy persons in foreign countries is one of the most constructive uses that can be made of these highly nutritious food products. The success of these programs in moving dairy products from Government warehouses is established by the fact that last year they were responsible for moving 40.4 percent of the butter, 32.1 percent of the cheese, and 41.1 percent of the nonfatt dry milk solids in Commodity Credit Corporation's inventory as of July 1, 1954, and purchased during the past fiscal year.

Where possible this program should be intensified in order to accelerate the disposal of Commodity Credit Corporation's stocks and thereby hasten the day when the dairy producers of this country will no longer have hanging over them the price-depressing influence of Government-owned stocks.

Along this line the dairy farmers of this country, represented through the National Milk Producers Federation, have urged the enactment of necessary legislation to permit the operation of a program designed to increase the consumption of foods, particularly dairy products, among low-income families. We urge the Congress to authorize experimental programs by the United States Department of Agriculture to determine the feasibility of some type of family milk program. It is estimated that upward of 7 million persons would be eligible for a program of this type. On the basis of an additional 1 quart of milk per week, per person, such a program could increase the consumption of fluid whole milk by upwards of 700 million pounds annually.

INCREASED CONSUMPTION OF MILK BY MILITARY ESTABLISHMENTS AND VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION

We commend the Congress for authorizing the use of Commodity Credit Cor poration's funds in the interest of expanding the consumption of milk in our military establishments and in the faciilties operated by the Veterans' Administration. The worth of this program is immediately recognizable. A recent report issued by the United States Department of Agriculture indicates that from November 1954 through June 1955 military establishments had increased their milk consumption by almost 100 million pints. In addition, the Army Quartermaster Corps took delivery of 79 million pounds of butter, 3 million pounds of cheese, and 7 million pounds of nonfat dry milk solids from Commodity Credit Corporation's stocks. The Veterans' Administration increased its con

sumption of milk between the months of March and June 1955, by almost 1.2 million pounds. The continuation of this program is urged upon the Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anybody else who desires to be heard on the milk problem?

Are there any other witnesses here?

I have a list here that was suggested yesterday. Is Mr. J. H. Williams here? All right, Mr. Williams.

STATEMENT OF J. H. WILLIAMS, NATCHITOCHES, LA.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am J. H. Williams, a cotton farmer. We have quite an odd condition in our area. Really we have all the problems that the other men in the cotton business spoke of with one additional problem. This problem is lack of control of insects. I am bringing that up in front of you gentlemen and it sounds out of place, but we have the pure food and drug laws which we have to get action on for us to make a cotton crop next year.

Last year during the 1953 year we had a crop failure in that area completely. This area consists of from around Shreveport to just south of Alexandria on the Red River. There is a product on the market which has been found to control weevils.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I put a statement in the record yesterday by one of the candidates for commissioner of agriculture in regard to this matter and as I recall he stated to me that he found it strange that some of this product which was made in Germany, I thinkMr. WILLIAMS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Was sold to some areas, but it is not, it could not be sold here. Can you tell us why?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Pure Food and Drug Act apparently has to pass on it, it has to be passed on by the Pure Food and Drug Administration before we can get it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not a problem that would take long to solve, would it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. It generally takes about 2 years from the time a product is offered for sale until the time it is put on the market.

Apparently we have an area in which they started using present cotton poisons which have been so very successful throughout the cotton growing areas of America.

The CHAIRMAN. In order to be able to get this passed on by the Drug Division, wouldn't the law have to be amended?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; it would have to be pushed forward. Put some dynamite under them and move them up.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that it is just an administrative matter?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I shall be glad to look into that with a view of trying to get some of that poison as soon as possible.

Mr. WILLIAMS. We would greatly appreciate it. It looks like this problem of ours is the same as DDT and the fly.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there not sufficient poisons now to kill the bugs?

Mr. WILLIAMS. There was. This year in an area, in that area I just spoke about, the poisons which have been killing the boll weevil no longer worked. We have the same condition that the DDT had with the fly.

The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand that the boll weevils are now immune to it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. They are now immune to the poison. Mr. Newsom, who is head of our experimental cotton division in the State, has been on my land numerous times this year. My poisoning program, speaking personally, was done under the supervision of Dr. Newsom. I mention that point because it might be said in the other areas that our area is not immune but it was not properly applied. We have had the opinion that immunity has built up to such a degree that if we do not get action on this other poison that in another year we will be out of the cotton business in one of the richest cotton areas in America.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you brought that to the attention of the Extension Service?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; the Extension Service has a representative here today.

The CHAIRMAN. Have they given you any advice?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir. All they can say is we can, if we can get the Pure Food and Drug Act they will pass on it.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure I can get the assistance of my colleagues on this important matter, and I can assure you we will take it up. Mr. WILLIAMS. We will appreciate it a lot.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. The record will show that Mr. Newt Carnahan and Mr. Coleman Martin appeared and subscribed to the statement made by Mr. J. H. Williams with respect to this poison.

Is there anybody else who desires to be heard?

STATEMENT OF COLEMAN MARTIN, COUNTY AGENT, NATCHITOCHES PARISH, NATCHITOCHES, LA.

Mr. MARTIN. There is one thing. I don't believe Mr. Williams pointed out that there was 250 tons of this made available for Mexico and an undetermined amount for South and Central America. The CHAIRMAN. I said for foreign use.

Senator LONG. Do I understand that although the Food and Drug Administration are not satisfied they adequately tested this insecticide, you are personally convinced and you believe adequate testing has been done to establish it is safe to use this and it would not hurt humans, and it will do the job for the cotton farmers in the area?

Mr. MARTIN. According to the Experiment Station people, it will do the job as far as killing the weevils, but that is not their line of activity to get into it and check whether it is too toxic to use or not. However, they are led to believe that it is not any more toxic than some of the other hydrocarbons we are using.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF WILSON MOTT, WELSH, LA.

Mr. Morr. I am Wilson Mott from Jeff Davis Parish. I brought the letter signed by the 50 farmers. We wish to discuss with you the matter which is very important to us.

As tenant farmers we find there is a situation that has arisen in the way the acreage allotment has been handled.

(For letter see p. 2553.)

The CHAIRMAN. Could that be done under the law? Is it an administrative matter?

Mr. Morr. If it is not possible it certainly wasn't possible to get any action from the parish committee. We tried to get action from the parish committee and we find what we believe is interpretation of the present law which, understand, is not good, but there is a regulation

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand from your statement to me a few minutes ago, it is your claim that the tenant farmer does not receive his just share of any, let's say, in this case, rice-acreage allotment. Mr. MOTT. That is correct. It is possible to remove

The CHAIRMAN. The landlord can use it all himself?
Mr. MOTT. Correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Or he can transfer it to someone else?

Mr. MOTT. Or transfer to another tenant which can double his history and this tenant is shoved out of business.

The CHAIRMAN. It is your view that any tenant who has had from a landlord a certain amount of acreage should continue to have that and not permit the landlord to transfer it to another tenant who might be able to double his acreage.

Mr. MOTT. Correct. This is the only way we can remain in business. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that but now last year, as I remember it, I took the plan up with the Department and I was given to understand that some rule and regulations would be made whereby the landlord couldn't use it or make the transfer of which you complain. If you have any cases-give me a list of 50 people signing the letter. Are those persons who have signed, are those who have not received their just proportion

Mr. MOTT. Not all 50. They are mostly all persons who can see a possibility.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give me the name of 3 or 4 who have not been treated fairly and whose acreage has been taken away from them-the tenant now-and given to some other tenant or that the landlord kept for himself to increase his planting?

Mr. MOTT. Let's take first, only last year was acreage introduced in this State and this is the first fall this thing has come up and we are trying to go ahead.

The CHAIRMAN. This fall?

Mr. MOTT. This period; this part of the year.

The CHAIRMAN. For next year.

Mr. MOTT. Yes. It is now time to bargain for next year.

The CHAIRMAN. But last year that condition was true.

Mr. MOTT. Not much went on but this year it is beginning on now. Landlords are demanding more share and the tenants hate to say no. If they say no, they leave with no acreage.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean to say the landlords are taking advantage of this situation and they are telling the tenants unless you increase my cut in your crop you won't get the land? Is that it? Mr. MOTT. Correct.

The CHAIRMAN. I assure you I will take that up immediately with the Department to the end that this can be corrected, if possible.