would be called upon to contribute to the carrying on of the program in areas that produce the hard potatoes?

Mr. EDMUNDS. I think in the first place this program is fully as much in their interest as it is in ours, that they will get all of the benefits if not slightly more than the benefits that we will get under the program; and in the second place the statements-and I have heard them before that they make that their production does not influence our production or price or outlet is completely false and misleading, because this crop of potatoes sold in this country is on the basis of the actual crop report. That sets the tone of the price for the entire season and they contribute to it whether it is 20 million or 30 million bushels, the same as we do, and they are coming into our markets with those potatoes and displacing ours.

Senator HOLLAND. One more question, insofar as the wool situation is concerned, do you really think there is any fair comparison between wool, which is 1 of our 2 great deficit crops, the other being sugar, and the perishable surplus crops of which Irish potatoes is one of the principal examples? Do you think there is any real basis for comparison between the two?

Mr. EDMUNDS. I was not attempting to compare the two crops in any sense. I was attempting to illustrate that compensatory payments were being used in one crop, and as far as we know from what we read it has been fairly successful.

Senator HOLLAND. The objectives are completely different. In the case of wool I am sure the objective is to increase our own independence of others of the world by enlarging our production of a strategically necessary farm commodity beyond the 30 or 40 percent of that commodity used in this country which is about the maximum we have produced.

It seems to me when you have an objective in wool to increase, and when your objective in Irish potatoes is to diminish the surplus, the complete difference of the programs is so clear that the mere fact that the compensatory payment has been used and is working in one case to increase, might even be an argument against using that kind of program when the objetive in potatoes is to decrease or diminish the crop. Do you not think that is sound reasoning?

Mr. EDMUNDS. I think that your reasoning is sound. I still feel that compensatory payments preserve a certain amount of initiative. to me as an individual to try to do the very best job that I can possibly do from a cost basis and marketing basis, and because I will be rewarded. The old program did not include that.

Senator HOLLAND. The compensatory payments for wool is designed to increase production.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. And is increasing it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. And yet you would use that same sort of program on a commodity where you are attempting to decrease production. Do you think that would be a logical adaptation of that program?

Mr. EDMUNDS. The way you put it, Senator, I cannot answer your argument effectively, but I still feel that the compensatory payment system-I cannot answer that one argument-I still feel it has a tremendous amount of value in so far as the potato industry is con

cerned, because you are going to tie the gross national production to what the country can actually market with strict production controls. Theoretically, you should have 100 percent of parity by doing that. I know that you will not, but if you tie it close enough to potatoes, which are so sensitive to figures, you cannot adjust it closely enough, so that I think that you would find compensatory payments would never be a burden on the Government or the industry to maintain them.

Senator HOLLAND. There are two things in your statement I find such that I can completely approve of them. I want to develop them a little, if I may.

You spoke of the steps that your people have taken to meet their own problems.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. One of those steps is the adoption of the separate marketing agreement under Federal law applicable to Maine potatoes; is that right?

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. The other is the levying of an advertising and research tax upon your own production.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. What does that amount to annually?

Mr. EDMUNDS. It raises up until this past year it used to raise approximately $150,000 to $160,000-we have doubled it; it raised approximately $300,000 to $325,000. I think I could make a statement that the industry itself would go farther in doubling it.

Our problem has been with our legislative to a certain extent, that they do not know whether we would be right in doing it.

Senator HOLLAND. I commend the position of your industry on that. If our experience in the citrus field has been of any advantage to others, we are spending approximately $6 million a year derived from a tax on our production per box. We find it to be very effective. It is spent largely on advertising, but also on research and transportation problems and the like. I commend you for what you have done.

Have you not gone further and have a compulsory grading program?

Mr. EDMUNDS. We have a very strict marketing order that we adopted. We have a grade-labeling law in the State of Maine. We have had it approximately for 20 years, which says that no package of Maine potatoes can be shipped unless the contents of the bag be specified on the outside. Under our marketing order we establish regulations in terms of grade and sizes. This year a 21/4-inch minimum and 4-inch maximum, U. S. No. 1 generally fairly clean, by far the strictest in the country. None can be shipped without submitting those specifications for the table trade. And the others, the seed specifications, for certified seed, are different in terms of size only. Senator HOLLAND. Do you not also have a compulsory package law? Mr. EDMUNDS. In what way do you mean? All potatoes that are shipped out of the State of Maine are shipped in packages, no bulk. Senator HOLLAND. They have to be shipped in packages?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Under our marketing order you cannot ship otherwise. We established the packages that you can use, 10's or 25's or 50's or 100-pound bags, but we have prohibited bulk shipments. Senator HOLLAND. I commend you for all of those things.

The next thing I commend you for is the stand on the cross-compliance program. Do you not think that if there is really an effective cross-compliance program, properly enforced, that with the self-help program which you have adopted in the State of Maine it would largely solve your problem?

Mr. EDMUNDS. I think it would go a long ways toward it. I think it would be a big help.

At the same time, I question if the potato industry in areas such as the State of Maine where we are extremely efficient so far as production is concerned, but we are a long ways from the market, can ever compete on a profitable basis with certain areas that surround the markets that we ship to that have, let us say, $1.50 a barrel advantage on us in terms of freight alone, that it is quite difficult to surmount that.

Senator HOLLAND. You are not going to be able to change by legislation the law of supply and demand.

Mr. EDMUNDS. No, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. Or the laws of economic advantage by reason of the location of production, are you?

Mr. EDMUNDS. We feel if you restrict production, production control as we have indicated here, we can at least hold our own and that the interests of the country will be served, because you are just going to build production up to what the country can use and not try to go further as the old program did.

Senator HOLLAND. I was interested in your comment on cross compliance, because I have always been insistent upon that principle although I have not always prevailed, as you know, in the Congress. It seems to me that strict compliance, coupled with these other measures which you have taken, which might easily be enlarged, is probably your soundest answer, rather than to try to follow an industry which is not the same all over the country. And you have just said the nearness to the large markets of some producers is such as to give them a great advantage over you.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I might say this, going back to cross-compliance, with what this industry can do to help itself, will certainly be a tremendous advantage. Whether we can achieve an economy that is as prosperous as some other segments of agriculture or of industry I would question, but it would be a tremendous advantage to us. There is no question about that.

Senator HOLLAND. You do have a tremendous advantage over many areas in the bushelage that you can produce per acre.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. In other words, each area has its own advantages?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes.

Senator HOLLAND. But you produce a very fine potato and more of them per acre.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I will agree with you.

Senator HOLLAND. So with strict cross-compliance, and your doing everything that you can for yourself, do you not think that you can come back to relative prosperity?

Mr. EDMUNDS. I would say, Senator, I would like to see controls on agriculture of any kind or on industry, I mean, a completely free economy. I would say that we could proceed with a completely free

economy and compete with anybody. We are to a certain limit competing against an economy that is operating under a certain amount of Government guaranty and it puts us in a little bit of a difficult position. I mean, we are forced to compete with them, not directly, but if I buy a tractor it is made by somebody in Milwaukee who received a fair minimum wage plus to build that tractor, and if I buy power, and we have to buy a lot of power in our industry for loading potatoes, the fellow I buy it from is protected insofar as he can set rates to guarantee him a profit, and if I ship my potatoes, the railroad is protected, and if I call upon the telephone, the telephone company is protected.

Senator HOLLAND. Does not the dairy industry, which seems to be very happy in this area, have all of those added costs that you are talking about?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. Does not the lawyer and the doctor and all of the other people whose income has not necessarily gone up proportionately at all, have those same problems?

Mr. EDMUNDS. To a certain extent, yes, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. But you think that the potato industry, in spite of the fiasco through which we went, should be protected against those raires in the way that you have suggested?

Mr. EDMUNDS. I think it would be desirable.

Senator AIKEN. In the interest of hearing as many witnesses as possible, I will forgo any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I would like to submit an additional bit of testimony submitted by Mr. Hussey.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. It will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Frank W. Hussey, executive vice president, Potato Industry Council of Maine, Presque Isle, Maine, is as follows :)

I. INITIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONCEPT

Program principle No. 7: "Initial establishment concept," should either be eliminated altogether or modified to permit the continued use of minerals to the extent needed on farms in this area, for the following reasons:

(1) The use of minerals is a must in our scheme of farming if we are to establish and maintain sod on our grassland farms.

(2) By maintaining these established grassland areas in good condition the need for some permanent-type practices, and the patching up of damaged land later, is eliminated.

(3) It is not safe to assume that even a majority of farmers will maintain what has been accomplished during the past 18 years when confronted with the unsatisfactory economic conditions outlined below.

(4) Farmers in this area have been unusually hard hit by falling prices and increased operation costs, and are not financially able to carry out and maintain recurring practices to the extent needed.

(5) The selection of practices needed on the farm, and the fields where they are to be applied, should be left to the farmer, because no farmer will spend his own money (50 percent of cost of a practice) for carrying out practices not needed on his farm.

(6) The recordkeeping and certifications required in connection with the "initial establishment concept" has proven to be a very heavy, expensive burden, not only from an administrative standpoint but for farmers as well. Farmers are thoroughly fed up and disgusted with the initial concept idea. They want a simple, usable program that fits the farming needs of this area.

II. TOPDRESSING AND THE IMPORTANCE AND NEED FOR CONTINUED USE OF LIME AND FERTILIZER

(1) In this area, where much of our land is in vegetative cover and does not need frequent reseeding, farmers need help in maintaining this cover through the use of minerals. The only practical way this can be done is by applying lime and fertilizer as topdressing to established hay and pastureland. Without cost-sharing assistance, farmers cannot finance the cost of carrying out these practices in the volume needed.

(2) The ACP program is more than an aid to agriculture alone; it is a national program of conservation to build up and maintain soil fertility and keep soilfertility reserves on hand for future needs. For this reason, city folks as well as farm people, recognize that farmers need financial help in building this soil bank.

(3) Large amounts of public funds have already been spent in an effort to maintain and increase these fertility reserves through the use of materials, and it would seem very unwise not to protect this investment by continued use of these minerals.

(4) Liming to the extent needed is a must, if other mineral elements are to be used effectively.

(5) All agencies, including the college of agriculture, experiment station, extension service, and the Soil Conservation Service, recognize the need for and are strongly behind the use of lime. Because of its importance in developing and maintaining a permanent type of agriculture in this area, we believe that assistance for this practice should be gaged by the need on the farm rather than by saying that we will help only once and then won't help again.

(6) Conservation needs estimates indicate that more than 400,000 tons of lime are needed annually in Maine for maintenance alone. However, in spite of the great need for lime in Maine, the tonnage used annually is dropping.

For example, in 1947, our peak year, approximately 100,000 tons were used in the State, while in 1954 the total tonnage used was only 43,000. The above figures closely parallel the drop in tonnage for the country as a whole-where in 1947 about 30 million tons were used, and in 1953 only about 20 million tons were applied. Since lime is basic to the efficient use of all fertilizers, restrictions on its use should be eliminated.

(7) We are in agreement with the principle that assistance for limestone and minerals, as well as all other ACP practices, should be given only to the extent needed on a particular farm, and that county committees should constantly be on the alert to see that these minerals go only where needed and in amounts sufficient to do the job.

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE PRESENT POLICY OF APPOINTING STATE AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEEMEN

I. PERIOD OF SERVICE

Present regulations require that 1 of the 3 former members of the State committee be replaced each year. In our opinion, this is not a sound policy, for the following reasons:

(1) Three years is too short a time for a new man to become thoroughly familiar with all phases of the many programs administered by the State committee. (2) Under the present policy, with only 2 years' experience on the committee, one of the members must then take over as chairman.

(3) State ASC committees are not only admiinstrative bodies-they are also policymaking committees and, as such, must reach decisions that are sound. This cannot be accomplished if the determination of policy and administration is left to men who themselves have not had sufficient time to develop a clear understanding of the many regulations, instructions, and details of all programs. (4) We favor and subscribe wholeheartedly to a rotational system for State ASC committees. However, we do not agree with the 3-year plan now in effect. We favor and recommend a rotation plan which makes possible the continuation of farmer members on a 6-year basis. Because of changes that are bound to occur due to death, changing occupations, and other factors that interfere with continuous service, not anticipated at the time of appointment, a 6-year term is none too long.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Frank W. Roberts. Give us your name in full, and your occupation. Are you speaking for any other witnesses that may be on this list?

64440-56-pt. 7———5