In brief, this is the economic picture in which the New York State farmer finds himself today. The question, of course, is what to do about it; a question you gentlemen have been asking farmers throughout the Nation.

Here in New York, we are dealing with the problems of our dairy families by a vigorous and coordinated campaign to increase the consumption of fluid milk, and we are getting results. However, the farm problem is essentially a national problem that calls for national action.

I have several recommendations.

The national school-lunch program should be made more effective. This program affords us an ideal opportunity to increase the consumption of farm commodities and at the same time build up the health of our children.

Many Americans are receiving public assistance for one cause or another. I would like to see something like the food-stamp plan to enable them to buy more and better food. Such a plan would help increase consumption of our disposable surpluses.

Food is one of the greatest weapons we have in the cold war. But distribution of our excess farm commodities abroad should be done in such a way that it adds to the diet of people who need additional food, or in other ways contributes to their economic development, and not by dumping, which would injure the legitimate interests of other friendly countries.

The present national system of disposing of farm surpluses discriminates against potato growers in New York State. This is clearly shown in a letter which Daniel J. Carey, our commissioner of agriculture and markets, sent to Secretary of Agriculture Ezra T. Benson on October 19, 1955. I shall present a copy of that letter to the committee at the conclusion of my statement.

The present program may have some beneficial results in other States, but it has been of no help whatever in New York.

I believe our potato farmers-and those in other States-are entitled to an overall, orderly marketing agreement for their product. Such an agreement should place on the farmer himself the responsibility for planting what is needed. Until such time as a program of that type is developed, however, the New York State potato grower should not be rated as a stepchild of the national administration, as he is at present.

The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 made possible an effective milk-marketing order for the New York metropolitan area, the world's largest market. I think nothing should be done that might weaken this Act.

I believe these recommendations I am outlining would go far toward alleviating the distress our farmers find themselves in today.

I further believe, however, that the farmers need and deserve the additional safeguard of an adequate price-support program.

We could extend the soil conservation program to divert acreage temporarily from production, when it is not immediately needed. This, however, is not an answer to the farm income problem unless it is accompanied by an adequate price support program. As a method of providing adequate income without the necessity of storing perishable commodities, we might well try production payments where there is no other satisfactory way of supporting farm income, on a temporary basis during the present emergency. Such payments, as are now being used in the case of wool, have the advantage of putting farm products into consumption. In the meantime, price supports for dairy products should be restored from 75 to 90 percent of parity.

I would like to point out that agriculture is New York State's oldest and largest industry-and its remarkable progress over the years received its impetus from family-sized farms. In some States, agriculture is based on enormous, corporation-type farms, and I know you must have received testimony on that kind of operation.

I believe that as a Nation we should do more to encourage family-sized farms before they are completely swallowed in the trend of the times.

Nothing is more traditional in the United States than the fact that a man going into business for himself-as a farmer or in any other field-starts as a small operator. He builds his business by his own hard work and that of his family; he is the true backbone of America.

I say that it is time we did something nationally to encourage the continuance of that tradition and not discourage it, as some of our present laws and current administrative policies in Washington are doing. Those policies serve to foster

even bigger corporation-type farm operations than presently exist in many States, and while doing this they are making it difficult for family-sized farms to continue.

In closing, I want to say that if we can keep the hard times farmers are now experiencing from spreading to the cities, we should soon see the current depressing agricultural surpluses disappear.

We must keep in mind that these surpluses-although they must be dealt with-are temporary. Only between 2 and 3 percent of total production is surplus now, and consumption is rising constantly. Our population is increasing by over 2 million a year. Thetre are 8 million families making under $2,000 a year-they and many others do not have an adequate diet, and if we help them increase their productivity and incomes, they will buy more and better food.

I am convinced-and conservative economists agree that our gross national product can be raised 40 percent in 10 years, with a commensurate increase in consumer purchasing power if we pursue wise policies. So, we can anticipate that our present surplus problem will disappear.

In the meantime, however, we should take prompt and vigorous action to bring our farmers much nearer to the goal of a fair share of the national income. (The letter dated October 9, 1955, is as follows:)

Hon. EZRA T. BENSON,

Secretary of Agriculture,

Washington, D. C.

OCTOBER 19, 1955.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I am taking this opportunity to call your attention to the administration of your national surplus-potato program as it affects our potato producers in New York State. From a practical standpoint the program is of no value to our producers.

In other areas you make the potatoes available to other outlets. To New York producers the only outlet you make available is for animal feed. Then you place an impractical regulation, which says that these potatoes must be chopped at the source. This is, first, a very expensive procedure and, second, potatoes after chopping when moved in packages or large quantities in bulk will deteriorate very rapidly and almost overnight would be unsuitable for animal feed. Our potato-growing areas in general are not contiguous to cattle-feeding areas. With the situation on Long Island the only possible diversion should be to starch flour or alcoholic plants. In fact, the program will not work in New York State.

Understand, sir, I am not protesting the use of section 32 funds which are allocated to you by Congress for diversion or new uses for surplus agricultural commodities. I believe it was the intent of Congress that a large share of this money be used for diversion of perishable commodities. I'm sure potatoes would fall in this category. Since these funds are derived from protective tariff revenues, and since farm income has been driven down, at least to some extent, because of apparent surpluses and since Congress has authorized these funds for these diversion purposes, I believe that section 32 funds should be used for the purpose so authorized by Congress. I am saying this because I find that $414 million of this fund was not expended for these purposes last year when farm prices were on the decline and, in fact, $414 million was returned to the Federal Treasury. I cannot accept a policy that would reimburse the Federal Treasury by this revenue in order to render to large corporations relief from taxes on profits derived as a result of the protective tariff from which these funds originate. However, at this point I am protesting the administrative discrimination against New York State potato growers under your national potato diversion program. I respectfully request that this condition be corrected.

Very truly yours,

DANIEL J. CAREY,
Commissioner.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lyons. Give the Governor my warm regards.

Mr. LYONS. Thank you. I shall.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Humphreys. Give your name in full for the record, your occupation.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE HUMPHREYS, PRESIDENT, ONEIDA COUNTY FARM BUREAU, NEW HARTFORD, N. Y.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. George Humphreys, dairy, potato farmer, and I am also president of the Oneida County Farm Bureau.

We, of the Oneida County Farm Bureau, are honored that you have selected Utica as the last stop on your 10,000-mile tour of the United States, during which you have made a continuing effort to find out what farmers really feel about the present farm situation. Throughout your trip as well as all of today you have heard many suggestions both practical and impractical about what should be done for farmers. No doubt many of these ideals have merit but we submit that perhaps the farmer's plight is the direct result of things that have been done for him, and that he would benefit greatly if less were done for him in the future rather than more, as seems to be the trend.

An outstanding example of what we mean is found in the theory and practice of price supports. We are the first to admit that high fixed price supports are a pleasant and even a necessary prop in a declining farm market. However, a support program is not a true market, but rather a Government storage operation. The produce thus purchased is not consumed and as the inventory builds up, what appeared to the farmer as help in time of need becomes a millstone around his neck once his production about equals the demand. Ordinarily his unit price would go up but the surplus hanging over the market depresses it below the level dictated by a normal supply and demand. Obviously, continued high support prices only aggravate this situation.

Therefore, we recommend the present flexible price support program be continued, but that our goal be the eventual discard of all support programs and that we look forward to the time when once again supply and demand will govern our agricultural economy.

We believe that farmers should do all they can to help themselves. With this in mind we recommend the continuation of the Federal marketing orders affecting the sale of milk and hope that they will be amended to provide the opportunity for producers to vote the acceptance of promotional deductions for advertising and further that these may be made mandatory on all involved.

Finally, we feel that research is an all-important field in which the Federal Government should help agriculture. Research, for example, in the area of milk marketing and new uses for milk. Research, too in the untouched field of agricultural public relations. This to our mind is all-important as the farmer becomes an ever-decreasing minority in our population. We need real help in better public understanding of agricultural problems by everyone.

Please accept our thanks for your patinece in hearing us out at the end of what must be a very tiring day. We are very grateful for your interest in our problems and commend your zeal and diligence in going to the grassroots for your information.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Humphreys.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the witnesses who asked to be heard, according to the list before me. If there are any of you present that desire to file a statement who may have some new ideas to give us in trying to reach a solution to this problem, we would appreciate it.

Personally, I was very glad to have been able to be on the road since October 23, and to be present to conduct every meeting for the past 4 weeks. It has been a little strenuous, but I can take it. I am used to it, but I am glad to say that this meeting will conclude our field hearings.

We hope that from what we heard here today, and from what we have obtained from other States, that come February we will be able to have a law on the statute books that will at least be of assistance to the farmer. I do not expect it to be a cure-all but we are very hopeful that we will be able to place something on the statute books that will assist the most important segment in our society, that is, the farmer. Are there any further remarks? If not, the committee will stand adjourned until we meet in January.

(Whereupon, at 4 o'clock, the committee adjourned.)

(Additional statements filed for the record are as follows:)

STATEMENT FILED BY EVERETT C. CANDAGE, TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, COMMODITIES COMMITTEE, SCHENECTADY COUNTY FARM BUREAU, ROTTERDAM JUNCTION, N. Y. It is pleasing to know that the authorities responsible for our Federal Government are realizing that the forgotten man-the farmer-should have more consideration, that he might get his fair share of the national income.

You do not have to be reminded that we have been working the most hours per week and getting the smallest returns for our labor, of any group in our Nation. Our county of Schenectady is no exception to this rule, although we have large industrial operations in our area and a high income for their workers. We as farmers must compete in this labor market if we desire any employees on our farms.

Farmers in this area produced their share during the war years, or our national emergency, whatever name you care to call it, and, we believe, did a good job willingly, with their share of sacrifice.

We believe our Federal Government program of high supports has been given a fair trial, and has not worked and will not work. We believe if we must have price supports at all they should be flexible, and should be so regulated that the program would serve as a floor for prices, or rather as assurance that a farmer would be guaranteed average production costs.

The nature of farming and the fact that the major part of the working force on farms is provided by the family, are major reasons why agricultural production does not make the same readjustments that characterize industry. Family farms will continue to be the primary type of farm. These family farms are generally geared for economical operation and if we have high supports with rigid controls that would cut back production, it would make many of these farms unprofitable and force some of the personnel to seek other employment. We believe we do not want to make farming so unpleasant and unprofitable that we will force our farm-raised young people off the farms, because, if the stork continues his present rate of delivery, by 1975 we may need our total production to feed our people.

Many of our farmers, especially poultry raisers, believe the penalty for raising more than 15 acres of wheat, to be fed on their own farms, is wrong, and they should be allowed to grow as much as they wish.

We believe that the Government should provide more research in an effort to find other uses for farm products.

We believe that if some of the so-called redtape were removed from the school lunch program, many schools would use more milk.

STATEMENT FILED BY AMHERST W. DAVIS, PRESIDENT, SUFFOLK COUNTY FARM BUREAU, MT. SINAI, N. Y.

Potato growers in Suffolk County are seriously considering the adoption of a potato-marketing agreement. At a recent meeting of the Suffolk County Potato Committee, 18 out of the 26 growers present voted in favor of trying to work out a marketing agreement which will fit Long Island conditions.

64440-56-pt. 7—19

The decision to try to work out a satisfactory marketing agreement is the result of economic necessity. Due to the surplus United States potato crops in the 3 years since 1952, Long Island farmers have quite generally lost money from growing potatoes, the same as growers in other competing areas.

A majority of our growers believe that a marketing agreement will be a big help (but not the complete answer) in balancing supply with demand provided we can get the type of marketing agreement that we need approved in Washington. The big drawback to the adoption of a marketing agreement previously on Long Island has been the United States Department of Agriculture's policy that all potato-marketing agreements must require compulsory shipping-point inspection for all shipments in order to provide a means for enforcing the agreement.

I would like to make it clear that the marketing-agreement law in my opinion does not require mandatory inspections before shipment. Rather it is just a USDA policy that a marketing agreement cannot be enforced unless all shipments are Government inspected as to grade before shipment. I can see how such a requirement is practical for Maine or Idaho, which are far from market, but such a policy makes a marketing agreement impossible to live with on Long Island. I will try to explain why.

Many potato farmers in western Suffolk and Nassau Counties of Long Island truck their own potatoes to New York City markets. They usually make up mixed loads of both potatoes and green vegetables. The grading and packing of these loads is not usually completed until it is about time for the truck to roll to market. It is impossible and impractical to delay the truck until a Federal-State shipping-point inspector can be secured to examine the load. On the other hand, the inspectors cannot inspect the shipment until it is graded and packed.

Commonsense tells us that there just cannot be enough shipping-point inspectors in western Long Island, so that our market trucks will not be delayed. If there were enough inspectors, so that trucks were not delayed, it would require one for nearly every farm and the inspection cost to the grower would therefore be excessive.

If the United States Department of Agriculture will go along with us, we believe we can work out a marketing agreement for Long Island which will be enforceable and which will not require the inspection of every farmer's load. We propose a system of spot checking whereby roving Government inspectors will call unannounced at each farm shipping potatoes to market.

These roving inspectors will check any lots of potatoes which the grower has packed for market. If any sacks of graded potatoes are found ready for shipment which do not comply with the marketing agreement, then the offending grower will be subject to an appropriate penalty. If the inspectors find that a grower repeatedly packs potatoes for shipment which violates the marketing order, such grower will be assessed increasingly heavy penalties. We believe that such a system will make a potato marketing agreement practical and workable on Long Island without the necessity of inspecting every load that a farmer drives to market.

I maintain that spot checking of potato shipments as to grade is completely practical. In a sense, it is already being done successfully. New York State has a compulsory potato branding law with teeth in it. State department of agriculture and market inspectors are continually checking on potato farms and warehouses to make sure that sacked potatoes comply with the branding law. By adding 2 or 3 more inspectors to the job on Long Island, these same inspectors could enforce the potato-marketing agreement regulations as to grades shipped on a spot-check basis. This of course would require the active cooperation of the State bureau of markets, but I am sure that Commissioner Carey would see to it that we secure such cooperation.

We would like to respectfully request that your committee examine the marketing-agreement law and determine if there are any legal obstacles to the spot-inspection plan I have outlined above. If the law does not permit such spat inspections, it is recommended that appropriate amendments be made in the law to permit spot inspections.

A Long Island potato-marketing agreement along with similar marketing agreements in Maine, Idaho, California, and other potato-producing areas will not be adequate every year to assure potato growers a reasonable profit for their efforts. Any one area or even several of them together cannot withhold enough low-grade potatoes from market by marketing agreements in a surplus crop year, like 1955, to bring growers a profitable return on their investment.