My friends from Long Island made the statement this morning about the mercantile exchange in New York.

I think that is dong more harm than anything else there is in the country right now. I for one, as a grower, would like to see that thrown out.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

I wish to place in the record at this point a telegram from your Senator, Herbert H. Lehman, who says that he cannot be here because of previous engagements in New York. He wishes me to give his best wishes to all of the witnesses scheduled to testify and to all of those assembled at the hearings in Utica, as well as the other Senators. The entire telegram will be put in the record at this point.

(The telegram of Hon. Herbert H. Lehman of the State of New York is as follows:)

DEAR ALLEN: I keenly regret my inability to be in Utica today but urgent Senate committee business keeps me in New York. However, I am happy to welcome you and your committee to New York State to conduct hearing which I know will be useful in finding the difficult solution to our difficult farm problems. I would like your permission and that of your committee to file a statement of my views on this matter to be included in the record of your Utica hearings. Unless advised otherwise I shall send this to you in the Senate Office Building. I feel as much concerned over our farm problem as over any other problem we face today. The drop in farm income which is especially severe for New York State farmers represents a startling blight upon our economy. Whatever legislative formulas are devised they must be aimed at promptly raising the level of farm income and the return of the individual farmer so that they may share in our national prosperity. We dare not neglect our farmers nor let them continue to be the forgotten folk of our current economic life. I shall, as I said, submit my detailed views to you. In the meantime please convey to the other members of your committee and committee staff members my heartfelt greetings. I was pleased to be able to work closely with members of your staff in arranging for these hearings. Give my best wishes, of course, to all the witnesses scheduled to testify and to all those assembled at your hearings in Utica. Warmest personal regards to you.

The CHAIRMAN. We will next hear from Mr. Evans. Can you summarize the matter in your statement in a few words?

STATEMENT OF HAROLD J. EVANS, SECRETARY-TREASURER, NEW YORK COOPERATIVE SEED POTATO ASSOCIATION, INC., GEORGETOWN, N. Y.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Harold J. Evans, and I am secretary-treasurer of the New York Cooperative Seed Potato Association, Inc.

I will be very brief. Omitting all preliminaries, I would like to say we believe, basically, one of the big troubles with the potato industry also is a bigger supply of potatoes than the market requires at the present time. This suggested program tends to regulate the supply of potatoes to market requirements to avoid waste of crops, a fair price to the consumer, and a living wage to the potato grower. The suggested program, we think, is a plan that might reduce the amount of potatoes produced and, also, I would like to say that we would like the idea of using what we have.

The United States Department of Agriculture puts out yearly what they call acreage guides. These are broken down to the State level. The acreage guide is supposed to be the amount of potatoes in any State or area that it can produce and market profitably.

As far as potatoes are concerned, the guides are not broken down from the State levels. Growers have no idea what their share of that allotment might be.

We also have in the setup in this country an ASC organization in every State and county. The committeemen on these committees may not necessarily be potato men. Therefore, we recommend that a potato committee in each State and county be set up to work with these ASC committees. And then take the acreage guides, break them down to a county- and farm-level basis.

If the acreage is reduced by this committee to the farm we feel there would be a fair distribution.

Of course, when we are talking acreage we also have in mind if it is based entirely on the acreage we may get too many potatoes. The committee should take that into consideration.

In determining the farm allotment in that way we recommend that the 1952, 1953, and 1954 acreages be used as a base, because last year, 1955, several sections used released acreages from other crops and increased potato plantings.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that not what caused the trouble?

Mr. EVANS. One of the biggest causes of the potato market being that way is due to the fact that California released acres from cotton and put them into potatoes, something like 38,000 acres, which flooded the markets, reduced the price, and we have not recovered from it. The CHAIRMAN. Maine has done the same thing.

Mr. EVANS. Maine has a lot of potatoes. They exceeded their allotment, but under the present program of utilizing for diversion in starch, et cetera, I do not think that there will be too many potatoes there. The figures indicate too many, but actually we do not believe there will be.

We also think that under this acreage allotment program every grower should have his allotment, his base allotment, but that he should not necessarily have to plant to the full extent if he did not want to, because in a system of rotation of crops sometimes you have 5 or 10 acres, more or less, and by reporting that to the county committee and getting released from that or putting in a request for a few more acres that somebody else releases, we would have a uniform supply, we think.

In back of this whole thing we would like to see enough potatoes supplied, but we do not want to see too many.

We would also like to see a provision for new potato growers who want to come in. This program, so far, is based more or less on a voluntary basis. We have a good many potato growers. In fact, by and large the potato industry is not in favor of rigid controls, at least that is true in this State. If, however, it seems to be necessary to have such mandatory acreage allotments and marketing quotas, we would recommend something like Senate bill 3049, with which you are familiar. We think that covers the situation very well. That does imply a whole lot of regulation and supervision and extra work, and we thought that might be accomplished in more or less a voluntary manner.

We believe that all this released acreage from other crops, and potatoes, too, should not be planted to any crop that is unsupported. It has caused a lot of damage to the potato industry. The released acreage, planted to other crops, would do the same thing.

Any program has to have a penalty. What we would like to see in the way of a penalty, if this voluntary plan could be put into effect, is that the grower would not get any kind of Government support or help if he exceeds his allotment. Such help as section 32 funds or any APC benefits that might accrue to his farm or any other kind of a price program that might be established. We think that would be some kind of a penalty that would tend to keep the acreage in line.

We think that this program would give the most control of the acreage and production with the least amount of regulation. We think it would be the most voluntary. And if all payments mentioned were withheld the most penalizing of any program that has been suggested by potato growers.

Unless the Government wants to play a major role. It would be selfregulating with the cooperation of the ASC organization, which is already set up in each State and county. It would cost the Government the least amount for administration. It would not interfere with any marketing program or practice in any market and would be a valuable adjunct to those areas which have marketing agreements. We feel that it would encourage the development of better marketing and improvement of the industry by the growers themselves, as does the wool program, especially so if ways of collecting funds could be provided and administered for promotion and advertising of potatoes. I refer to the wool program there because in the transcript here we mention that if a support program is put on we would like that kind of a program so that we can take some of the money to promote our own product.

We think that this kind of a program would fit the ever-changing picture of production trends and consumption needs.

The guides could be changed, for instance, each year. They are changed each year. And, of course, that would be passed down to the various farms. We believe this kind of a program comes the nearest to being self-administering and makes the United States Department of Agriculture a junior partner rather than a major interest. Thank you.

Senator AIKEN. That is very good.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Harold J. Evans is as follows:)

My name is Harold J. Evans, a potato farmer of Georgetown, N. Y. I am also manager of the New York Cooperative Seed Potato Association, Inc., which sells both seed and table potatoes for its 75 members, mostly in New York State.

The following statement is that of the New York Cooperative Seed Potato Association, Inc., and has been thoroughly discussed by its members and directors and I have been delegated to present it to your committee.

We recognize that your committee is considering the agricultural situation as a whole and while this program is concerned with potatoes only, we believe it has certain basic principles which could be applied to other crops.

We believe your committee has had sufficient background and is well versed in the condition of the potato industry as far as growers are concerned and we will not take up your time in trying to convince you that economically growers are in bad shape. We think you will agree with us that this economic condition is due in part at least, to tariff protection and subsidies of certain industries, to guaranteed minimum wages of labor and the operation of union activities with the sanction of Government. Use of released acres from supported crops in certain areas planted to potatoes broke the market during the summer and prices have not recovered since.

By and large, the potato industry is in favor of a self-help, self-administered program with a minimum of Government support and we believe the following briefly outlined program could be made effective along this line.

We believe, basically, one of the big troubles with the potato industry also is a bigger supply of potatoes than the market requires at the present time. This suggested program tends to regulate the supply of potatoes to market requirements to avoid waste of crops, a fair price to the consumer and a living wage to the potato grower.

SUGGESTED PROGRAM

The USDA issues, yearly, what are called acreage guides. They indicate what acreage each State should raise of potatoes and other crops for the current season to meet market requirements. As far as potatoes are concerned, the guides are not broken down from State levels. Growers have no idea what the allotment within a State, county, or region might be.

The USDA also has an ASC organization for each State and county. These State and county committees may or may not be potato growers. recommend

POTATO COMMITTEES

So, we

1. That a potato committee in each State and county be set up to work with the ASC committees.

ALLOTMENTS

2. The acreage guides for the State would be broken down to a county level and from a county level to the farm level by the ASC potato committees. This will give each farmer an acreage allotment which will be his personal guide. His acreage allotment should take in consideration his probable average yield so his marketings would be in line with consumer demands.

In determining the farm allotment, the acreage planted in the years of 1952-54 should be used as a base because if the year 1955 is used it would include acreage in many sections where released acreages from supporting crops were used to increase potato plantings.

By

Under this program provision should be made so that any grower whose allotment is established on the above plan would have the right to shift his acreage as his crop rotation indicated without losing his basic allotment. reporting to his county committee before a certain date ahead of planting season that he wanted to plant a few acres more or less, this released acreage could be well distributed because some growers would want a few more acres in any season for the same reason. He should not be penalized for sound agricultural practices.

Provision should also be made for new growers who want to start raising potatoes and to provide for trends in production areas.

If mandatory acreage allotments and marketing quotas should be decided upon by the United States Senate and House Agricultural Committees we would favor a plan similar to S. 3049 which was written and acted upon in 1950.

RELEASED ACRES

3. We believe that provision should be made whereby acreages released from potatoes under this plan or on any other crop on any kind of program should not be planted to crops which are not regulated. In this connection we favor the so-called soil-bank plan of planting soil-conserving and land-improving crops.

PENALTIES

4. The above plan is the nearest voluntary of anything we can get, but it needs some penalties. If the grower exceeds his allotment no support or financial aid should be given him for any Government program. We would recommend that any grower who exceeds his allotment without the approval of the county committee, not be entitled to any benefits from section 32 funds if they should be applied in surplus years like the current season nor any APC benefits that might apply on other crops on his farm nor any kind of price support program that might be devised.

SUPPORT PROGRAM

5. If any support program is devised for the potato industry, we suggest one similar to the so-called wool program which provides, not only for a fair price for the product marketed but the setting aside of a certain percentage of payments for the use of research, sales promotion, etc.

OBSERVATIONS

We believe this program would give the most control of acreage and production with the least amount of regulation.

It would be the most voluntary, and if all payments mentioned were withheld, most self-penalizing of any program suggested, unless the Government were to play a major role.

It would be self-regulating with the cooperation of the ASC which is already set up in each State and county and would be the least cost to the Government for administration.

It would not interfere with any marketing program or practices in any market and would be a valuable adjunct to those areas which have marketing agreements. We feel that it would encourage the development of better marketing and improvement of the industry by growers themselves, as does the wool program, especially so if ways of collecting funds could be provided and administered for promotion and advertising potatoes.

This kind of program could be made to fit the ever-changing picture of production trends and consumption needs. The guides could be changed yearly and farm allotments to comply therewith.

We believe this kind of a program comes the nearest to being self-administered and makes the United States Department of Agriculture a junior partner rather than a major interest.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Althouse. Give your name in full for the record. Have you anything new to add to what has been stated today, sir?

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE R. ALTHOUSE, VICE PRESIDENT, EASTERN FARMERS UNION, AND COCHAIRMAN, NATIONAL POULTRY FARMERS ASSOCIATION, TRENTON, N. J.

Mr. ALTHOUSE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Clarence R. Althouse. I live in Trenton, N. J. Today I represent the Eastern Farmers Union, and I am acting as vice president on behalf of the Eastern Farmers Union and as cochairman of the National Poultry Farmers Association.

As a producer of these major commodities of the Northeast-eggs, poultry, and milk-I certainly welcome this opportunity to appear before your committee and present my views and those of the organizations I represent.

In order that there may be no misunderstanding, we wish to state that we are wholeheartedly in favor of 90-percent parity support for the basics, but we also maintain that (1) eggs and poultry must have the same parity level of support as wheat and corn, and (2) that the farmer should and must receive full parity for all of his commodities up to the family-farm level of production.

There are two ways a full parity program could be put into effect in respect to eggs and poultry. One is through the use of production payments, limited to the family-farm level of production. The other is through the release of grain by the Federal Government at such prices as to bring the egg-feed and poultry-feed ratios in line with full parity, again limited to the family-farm level of production. In return for either one of these two programs, the poultry farmer, by the customary two-thirds vote, would necessarily have to agree to whatever restrictions are necessary to control production.

A full parity program includes also such devices as the school-lunch program, a food-stamp plan, and a conservation acreage reserve plan. Congress has regularly set aside section 32 funds for price support for farm commodities. We still cannot understand the refusal of