market prices. The tobacco, cotton, and wheat farmers have discovered that we cannot have price fixing without production controls. As Government control increases it becomes harder for the farmer to object to price fixing. I believe that now is the time to shed some of the yoke of Government subsidies. Supports on a rigid 90-percent base without regard for changing supply and demand relationships are responsible for the serious trouble today of the wheat, cotton, corn, and tobacco farmer. The biggest surpluses held by CCC are commodities for which 90 percent price supports were set without considering supply and demand factors.

Lower farm income in the face of rising farm costs is aggravated by a rigid support program. Price fixing has separated the farmer from his market. It has also reduced his income and increased his unit costs of production. Improvements to the support program is not the total answer to the farm problem. I believe that the Agriculture Department and the Secretary of Agriculture should have a free hand in exporting farm produce abroad. Present provision in the law provides that 50 percent of our surplus farm products sold abroad has to be delivered by American shipping. When I make a purchase at home the seller does not require that he deliver a percentage of it to me. I don't know of any good reason why agriculture should be handicapped by this provision. I recommend that it be eliminated from the law.

Today, the wage-earner has the biggest take-home paycheck in history. Just about every item the industrial worker buys, with the exception of food, can be purchased on credit. This situation has caused many workers to overspend their incomes. When this occurred many purchased less food in order to have sufficient funds to make time payments. Lenient credit controls have helped the manufacturers' sales and have resulted in a loss of food sales by the farmer. Perhaps this is one place that agriculture could be assisted by encouraging the consumers to enjoy a more balanced diet and thus consume larger amounts of food products.

Processing and handling charges for farm products is very high. In 1954 the middleman received more for handling the food than the farmer received for producing it. The consumer's food dollar is buying more services and less food. There is no doubt that some of these services have helped to increase sales of food. Some of these services have only added to the cost. Some farm commodity groups have started on their own to advertise their products. The dairy and poultry farmers are examples of such activity. Surpluses can be reduced by advertising farm products through the newspapers, radio, and television. I believe that the Government should not interfere in a program of this type.

During the early forties our Government asked the farmers to increase their production. Government leaders said, “Food will win the war and write the peace." Farmers responded with unheard of production, an they have continued to do so as it is difficult for them to slow up production. Less than half of our farmers are producing 85 percent of our farm output. The price-support program has benefited the large farmer more than the small farmer, and the large operator is the major cause for the surplus production. I believe that farms of 150 acres or less should be exempted from acreage controls. There will be some technical points to be ironed out here, but it could be done. The production of the small farmer, according to statistics, is providing for about 10 percent of our total population. Why should he suffer from acreage conThe present wheat allotment program is forcing the small grower out completely and ruining his crop-rotation plans. The wheat he produced did not cause the surplus in the first place.

trols

I further recommend that the flexible support program be applied. The flexible support plan will come closer to working along with supply and demand relationshis. Also land will have to be taken out of production, how much and what type of land to be determined from the reports of the National Soil Survey when completed. Probably both good land and marginal land will have to be left idle. The farmer would be reimbursed through soil conservation program practices. This type of program would not cost any more than the present Government purchase plans would, and the Government would not be in the business of buying surplus farm products and selling them at a great loss. There would be no surpluses clouding the market and thus private enterprise would be more willing to buy from the farmer.

Even with a program as I have mentioned, farming will not be a bed of In our Nation is so many different agricultural areas that it is quite difficult to adopt a program of national scope that will not step on the toes of

roses.

someone at certain times.

The absence of politics and a genuine effort on the part of farmers and those honestly interested in farming should produce a program that will eliminate overproduction and increase farm income.

I am sure that it was an honor to appear here today, and I wish to thank every member of the Senate Agriculture Committee for the opportunity.

STATEMENT FILED BY CHARLES J. LAMM, GREENLEAF, IDAHO

My name is Charles J. Lamm. I operate a 120-acre farm near Greenleaf, Idaho. Dairying is my main source of income from this farm, and I raise hay, grain, and corn for cash crops as well as for feed for my cows.

My experience as a dairy producer has proven to me that the dairy industry is much better off today operating under a system of flexible price supports and a minimum of Government controls than it was when the Commodity Credit Corporation ruined our dairy product market by purchasing and storing these products at high support prices.

High Government supports on our dairy commodities priced our products out of the foreign market, and even jeopardized our domestic market to such an extent that we forced dairy substitutes onto the tables of our consumers.

Our whole American system is based on the concept of free enterprise and competition. And this free system is the one big factor that has made our country the industrial and social idol of the whole world.

We the farmers are victims of being used by the two major political parties for political purposes. I believe that we have as Secretary of Agriculture today a man who is both sincere and very capable. I believe that his program of flexible supports is a great step in the right direction for a sound and stable agriculture and for the general economy of our great United States of America.

STATEMENT FILED BY LAWRENCE LARGENT, Colfax, Wash.

My name is Lawrence Largent. I farm in Whitman County, Wash. I raise wheat, barley and cattle. I realize that our surpluses are the chief cause of our present predicament. We are in a price squeeze. The commodities we buy cost more, and the commodities we sell bring less. We have accumulated these surpluses under a high-support program which encouraged high production, and low consumption. I believe that we should give the flexible price program the opportunity to prove its worth. We have priced wheat out of the feed market. I feed cattle, but I do not feed them any wheat because it is too high priced. I feed barley and other cheaper feeds.

If our market for wheat is limited to human consumption we will be compelled to cut our production more than at present. High prices also encourage producers of other commodities to go into the production of wheat which add to our surpluses.

The loopholes in our present program, which permit us to raise competing crops on our diverted acres, does not help us reduce our surpluses. I believe that a portion of our diverted acres should be taken out of production and seeded to a soil-building crop. In order to make this program practical it may be necessary for the Government to make an incentive payment. It would be more economical to store our surpluses in the soil, than in elevators, as at present. Such a reserve would present no problems such as storage, spoilage, or other losses, and would be available at very short notice in the event of an emergency. In addition we should make every effort to increase our foreign markets.

There is no easy solution to our problems and I realize that we, as farmers, must expect to make some individual sacrifice in solving them.

STATEMENT FILED BY ART LINDBERG, PENDLETON, OREG.

You have found that there is a place and a need for all kinds of wheat grown in this country. You have also found that certain varieties are more desirable than others in the makeup of certain brands of bread.

With the growing belief that there is a tendency to discount the value of Northwest soft white wheat, I ask this committee to seriously consider our position in the national scope.

It cannot be said that Northwest white wheat lacks quality.

Through the efforts of the Northwest colleges and experiment stations together with other organizations who, through the use of self-imposed taxes, have developed the best white wheat in the Nation. The use of these varieties are unlimited in the manufacture of pastry of all kinds. What's a cup of coffee without a doughnut?

The white wheat contribution to the national carryover is in the lowest bracket.

At the present time we seem to be buried in wheat of all kinds, but in times of need the producers of the Northwest wheat have shown that they are both willing and able to meet the demand for more food products, and, in my opinion, it would be a great mistake to so classify our products as inferior to or less desirable than any other wheat grown in the Nation.

National production consumption and carryover of the 4 principal classes of wheat in United States, January 1955

National production consumption and carryover of the 4 principal classes of
wheat in United States, January 1955—Continued

STATEMENT FILED BY WALTER S. MARION, JR., FAIRFIELD, WASH.

I am a veteran. I am also master of the Waverly Grange.
I have just recently quit farming in favor of a farm job.

Before quitting

I had farmed 320 acres of fertile land between Fairfield and Spangle, Wash.
The soil on this farm is Palouse silt loam and is considered as fertile as any
in the State of Washington. The farm was leased in the fall of 1949 from
my father.
I paid only $3,600 for my farm equipment, which I considered a
very fair price. While farming the place, I gave one-third of the crop as

rent.

I raised wheat and peas, summer fallowing only as necessary for weed control. I also raised sweetclover as a green manure crop on parts of the farm. About half of the farm, 160 acres, was normally planted to wheat. Since wheat allotment was started, I was unable to plant enough wheat to pay expenses and was forced to grow other grains which had much lower cash value. Each year I have been allowed less wheat acreage. In 1956 I would have been permitted only 90 acres of wheat.

In 1955 I was permitted to raise 107 acres of wheat. I also had 55 acres of oats and 108 acres of peas. Unfavorable weather conditions caused somewhat less than the normal yield on my 1955 crop. My wheat yield was about 261⁄2 bushels per acre.

With expenses increasing each year, I became unable to pay my farm expenses. In 1955 my gross return was figured at $5,195 and my farm expenses at $5,210, exclusive of living expenses for myself, my wife, and 12-year-old daughter. In order to continue farming, I would have had to take a chattel mortgage on my farming equipment which was not yet completely free of debt, in order to plant the fall crop and live for the coming year.

With the short wheat allotment and heavy expenses indicated for 1956, it did not seem possible to pay off the mortgage and make a living for my family. I have, therefore, quit farming and have taken a job. I fear there will be many more who will be required to quit farming unless some relief is given in the near future. This relief could be in the form of better acreage allotments and higher prices for the wheat raised, or by lower prices for the products a wheatgrower must buy.

STATEMENT FILED BY L. B. MARTIN, PRESIDENT, IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, POCATELLO, IDAHO

Farmers of Idaho in the Farm Bureau organization, which has a membership of more than 16,000 farm families and represents more than 3 out of 4 of the organized farmers in the State, are primarily interested in a high net farm income. But they want it in sound dollars and not at the cost of their liberty and right to produce.

Many persons are trying to make a major political issue of farm price supports. For years Farm Bureau-a nonpartisan, independent organization of farmers has maintained that sound economic judgment and not political emotion and expediency should be the basis for determining any level and system of Government support pricing.

The Idaho farm families, which it is my privilege to represent at this hearing, are naturally interested in receiving good, profitable prices for their products. They also realize from sad experiences under a rigid high price-support program that Government-decreed high prices on a few commodities do not necessarily contribute to a high net income from the whole farm. Rather, experience has proven that such supports have provided much artificial stimulation to production and decreased the incentive for active marketing to the point that the Government in too many cases has become the customer who gets the products to store or somehow dispose of.

A $4.86 billion mountain of market-price-depressing surpluses has been piled up because the wartime production incentive support program has been continued far beyond the time of emergency.

No one is more aware of the difficulty caused by continuing this production incentive program of high support prices beyond the need for its intended function than are the wheat farmers of the Western States and especially our dry farmers in Idaho. Their wheat acreage has been cut by 40 percent, even though they produce a quality wheat demanded by the mills. The only other crop much suited for production on the dry farmland is barley, but so many of the restricted acres have already been diverted to barley production that the price has been forced down by a mounting oversupply.

We must constantly keep in mind that net farm income is equal to volume produced on the entire farm, times the price received, minus the cost of producing. Many of these costs such as machinery investment, taxes and depreciation remain fixed even when the acreage is cut. Thus, through acreage control, our wheat farmers are gradually losing their right to produce wheat to areas much less suited for its production. They also find it practically impossible to operate. efficiently.

Potato farmers of Idaho began to face a somewhat similar situation several years ago when potatoes were under support. Many formerly nonpotato pro