gently, and many times successfully, in dealing with far-reaching programs of our Nation, in fields far from the actual farm problem.

I thank the Senator from Louisiana for yielding to me. I again commend him. I do not know of any committee in the history of the Senate that has had more diligent or more cooperative leadership. Mr. BASS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. BASS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in commending the chairman and the committee for their work. I served for 8 years on the Committee on Agriculture in the other body before coming to this body. I have learned something of the problems of trying to write a fair and equitable piece of agricultural legislation. I have not learned how there can be a solution of the problems. I have learned of the impossibility. Because of the varying nature of farm problems and the differences in opinions and nature of human beings, it is impossible to write a permanent farm program which can be dealt with nationally.

The Senator from Louisiana presides over the committee in a most democratic and fair manner. He is as fair as any man I have ever dealt with during my service in the Congress. I know that during the deliberations on the bill and during the executive sessions, many problems were discussed. Regardless of how small a problem might seem to some of us, the chairman permitted a discussion, with deliberation, of any proposal made in an effort to arrive at a possible settlement in dealing with a major or minor farm problem.

Therefore, I commend the chairman of the committee for the manner in which he handled the bill and the manner in which he treated all members of the committee.

This bill is an attempt to solve important problems, even though temporary, that might arise in agriculture.

There are some sections of the bill with which I do not agree, but we are discussing the bill itself. There may have been some differences with respect to certain amendments, but I am speaking of the legislation in its entirety at

this moment.

I did not want this opportunity to pass without joining my colleagues in commending the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Iyield.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. TALMADGE. I am delighted to I am delighted to join in the statements made by our colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on both sides of the aisle regarding our able, efficient, and distinguished chairman, the senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER].

It has been my privilege to have served on the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry the entire time I have served in the U.S. Senate. I do not know of any Member of this body who works harder or more diligently than does the chairman in facing complex problems such as our Nation's farm problems. CXI-1469

As has been said, our chairman is most fair in hearing every viewpoint with respect to problems which might face the committee. He has never taken a dictatorial attitude toward any policy or phrase or objective the committee might undertake, or the personal views of any member.

The particular bill which is now before the Senate was debated in executive session, morning and afternoon, for 8 long days. It was tiring and complex. All during that time our chairman kept his calm and demeanor at times when acrimony might have spilled over into the discussion.

I again compliment a dedicated and able American, the chairman of the committee.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, this is the first year I have had the privilege of serving on the Senate Agriculture Committee under the chairmanship of the distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana. I have been fortunate enough, during my service in the Senate, to serve under some very able Senators as chairmen of committees. I have not had the experience of serving under any chairman who has operated unfairly or without giving consideration to all viewpoints. I do not know how any committee could possibly be operated better than the Senate Agriculture Committee has been. Neither can I comprehend how a chair

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will man could operate any more fairly than the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. EASTLAND. I join in the remarks which have been made by our distinguished colleagues with respect to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, the Senator from riculture and Forestry, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER]. He knows He knows more than any other Member of Congress more than any other Member of Congress about agriculture. He is one of the most able chairmen in the Congress. He conducts the deliberations of his committee with distinction and with fairness to everyone. Although all of us may not agree with all sections of this bill, everyone of us had an opportunity to present one of us had an opportunity to present his viewpoint and his thoughts, and the result has been a bill that I think is fair. The distinguished Senator from Louisiana has done an outstanding job as chairman of the committee and as a chairman of the committee and as a Senator from his State.

Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

has the chairman of that committee.

During the hearings, each member of the committee has been given complete discretion as to the amount of time devoted to questions. Of course, they must be asked in order, but there has never been any cutting off of questions. The chairman has patiently sat through the long explanations sometimes offered, which I am sure he had heard many times before, in an effort to make it clear to all members of the committee and all persons viewing the hearings that this is a fairly operated committee.

During the deliberations--which were long, tedious, and most controversial, as is bound to be the case with an omnibus farm bill-each member of the committee was given ample opportunity to set forth his views. Our chairman was understanding, patient, and keen of insight. I join my colleagues on the comMr. mittee in wishing him to know that we appreciate the opportunity to have served under him.

Mr.

Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. President, I join my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on both sides of the aisle in paying tribute to the distinguished chairman. Since I first came to the Senate I have had a great deal of pleasure, as well as hard work, on the committee.

As has been ably said by some of the other members of the committee before me, we do not always agree on everything that has been said or done by the committee, but there has never been a time when the issue has become pertime when the issue has become personal. Such discussions have always been in a spirit of cooperation. The chairman has always heard every memchairman has always heard every member of the committee to the fullest. Their wishes and their views have always been considered and made a part of the record.

I am proud to be on the committee under the distinguished chairman. There is no question that he has a greater store of knowledge on this subject than has any other Member of this body. There are very few questions one can ask the chairman that he cannot answer without looking at the book. It is really a great committee. I am proud to be on it. Although we have not agreed on some portions of the bill, because of differing viewpoints, I am proud to be able to work on major legislation in that important committee.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. COOPER. Knowing the Senator as one who devotes his time and interest to work, and knowing him to be exceedingly modest, I am not too sure he wishes to be overburdened with tribute.

But this is my sixth year of service on the Senate Agriculture Committee, and I have found it a most satisfactory and rewarding service. The Agriculture Committee deals with an industry which is forgotten at times, but which is the largest industry in the United States, and basically the most essential, because it provides the food and clothing for the people. I have known, from experience in other countries, the problems a country faces when it cannot feed and clothe its people. America should be very proud that it does feed and clothe its people, and also the people of many

other countries.

So the Senate Agriculture Committee is a great and important committee. I am glad to be a member of it also because agriculture is the greatest single industry in my own State, as it is in other States.

Perhaps we may gain some satisfaction from the knowledge that while the farm problem is difficult and at times

may seem impossible of permanent solution, and may not be very clearly understood by most of our people, we on the Agriculture Committee may know something more about the problem than others. I join my colleagues in saying that one of the great satisfactions is to serve under a chairman so fair, impartial, and thorough, who exercises a leadership which I believe enables us at least to do the best it is possible to do with this difficult program.

A few days ago, I estimated the number of hours that the committee had spent in executive session discussing this bill. I think it was almost 50 hours. I do not know whether any other single bill has received such exhaustive attention. Such thoroughness has been due to the leadership and the attitude of the chairman. So I feel happy to have been a member of the committee, under the chairmanship of the distinguished Sen

ator from Louisiana.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. AIKEN. I wish to join in what has been said about the chairman of

our committee. I have already said it so often that it may become monotonous. It has been a lifesaver to serve under a chairman who has been so fair, so willing to listen to the arguments of both sides, so willing to have his own motions voted down and not become angry. We have been fortunate indeed.

I am sure the Senate is not, at this time, planning to enact permanent farm legislation. There is no such thing as permanent farm legislation, because the permanent farm legislation, because the agricultural situation changes so fast

that no program can be permanent.

I know that in respect to certain commodities, we are in difficulty. I do not

But

remarks about my chairmanship. I should feel more at ease had the remarks come after the bill as presented is enacted. I fear that this is merely a calm before the storm.

I am hopeful, however, with all these fine commendations from Senators who worked with me on the committee, that the bill as presented will come out more or less intact.

Mr. AIKEN. If the Senator will yield a moment further, I am sure the RECORD of today's proceedings will be printed before final action is taken on the bill, and I shall be glad to read my remarks again if it would make the chairman any happier.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a brief observation? Mr. ELLENDER. If I may yield without losing the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. PASTORE. It is the strong conviction of the Senator from Rhode Island that the chairman will come out unscathed, but I am hopeful that his bill will not.

rupted to listen to Senators speak of the fairness of the chairman and other matters, I had barely started on title II of the bill, dealing with the feed grain provision.

I am not at all satisfied with the feed

grain program. I am speaking, of course, personally. When the feed grain provision came to us in 1961, I reluctantly agreed to go along, in the hope that we could later enact a bill which would truly

When the House passed title II very few changes were made in respect to The Senate committhe existing law. tee made some improvements in the bill. As Senators know, we have a base acreage for the production of corn and other feed grains. In order to persuade farmers to cut back on their acreage, we have a voluntary diversion program with payments. This program, being voluntary, has in a measure reduced our surplus, but at great cost to the taxpayers, in my opinion.

The program was supposed to curtail our surpluses by a greater amount than is now evident. Since the special program has been in effect, it has cost the Government over $5.4 billion to bring the surplus from a high of 84.7 million tons to about 54 million tons. The other day I calculated that in order to accomplish this, the cost per bushel was almost $6. This, in my opinion, is due to the fact that it is a voluntary program. Those who comply with the program do so to obtain diversion payments and price supports, and in doing so they hold an umbrella over those who will not join and who will not try to curtail production.

For instance, consider the State of Iowa. There, as I recall, 65 percent of the farmers cooperate. However, the 65

percent control only about 25 percent of the land that is planted to corn, and only 14 percent of the production of

corn in the State of Iowa.

What is really happening is that a few farmers who join the voluntary corn program hold the umbrella over those who do not join, by reducing corn production and thereby keeping the market

have always felt that any farmer who expects his Government to support the

As I said a moment ago, that is not the proper way, in my opinion, to re

this country. I would confine our surplus list to cotton and tobacco; and to

bacco has already been legislated upon

this year.

We hope that, in conjunction with the House of Representatives, legislation may be devised which will work. Should it be legislation I disagree with, I will still try to help make it work, though I may be on the losing end with respect to some of it. I do not yet know whether I shall be or not. I assume that perhaps I shall be or not. I assume that perhaps I shall be before we are through.

Great tolerance has been exhibited by all members of the Agriculture Commit

tee. They do not tear their hair when they find themselves on the losing end of a vote; neither do they try to tear their opponents' hair. Much of this tolerance has been due to the patience shown by the chairman of the committee. So we are very fortunate, as I have already told

the committee.

Speaking of permanent farm legislation, I believe the chairman proposed that a part of it, at least, run for 7 years. Four-year legislation would be "permanent," but 7 years would be "eternal" so far as farm legislation goes.

I am happy to add my remarks to what has been said about our chairman, the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I am, of course, most appreciative of these fine

tion in keeping with our requirements.

As I said, I joined the forces to enact the feed grain bill in 1961, in the hope that in the meantime we could enact a law which would call for acreage control, marketing quotas, and penalties for overproduction.

I tried on several occasions to put
I suc-

such a bill through the Senate.
ceeded once. I tried again before the
committee during the past month, but
I could not get sufficient support in com-
mittee in order to provide for acreage
had been very difficult to provide farmers
controls. I realized that in the past it
had been very difficult to provide farmers
who grow corn and other feed grains
with a realistic program of acreage con-
trol, marketing quotas, and penalties.
realized that it would be futile for me to
try to persuade Congress or the Senate
try to persuade Congress or the Senate
to agree to my proposal. Therefore I
do not intend to offer it. I am willing
to go along with the bill as presented.

I

I believe we have made a few improvements in the feed grain program; and if it is used by the Secretary of Agriculture, there is no question that it will help ture, there is no question that it will help us to persuade more farmers to join the procession of cutting back on production. In the bill that was presented by the Department of Agriculture, not too many changes were suggested from the present law.

lowest cost.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I should like to finish this point. I shall yield to the Senator in a moment.

The bill would permit the Secretary of Agriculture to make it more desirable for noncompliers to come into the program. We do not seek abruptly to reduce the price support level from $1.05 to 85 cents, as my proposal was intended to do, but rather we would let the Secretary of Agriculture fix the price support level at 65 to 90 percent of parity, and then gradually lower the loans supplemented with the direct payments.

In that way as the loan decreases per bushel the direct payment increases. The farmer can be assured of $1.25, or whatever figure the Secretary of Agriculture deems proper, provided that it is not under 65 percent of parity, nor over 90 percent of parity.

The proposal I submitted to the committee would have required the Secretary of Agriculture to impose acreage controls, marketing quotas, and penalties. If my proposal failed of approval by two-thirds of the producers of corn, then the price support would abruptly go back to 50 percent of parity or about 80 to 85 cents a bushel.

But that proposal failed, and the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] offered a proposal to make it possible for the Secretary to reduce gradually the support price from the present $1.05 to perhaps $1 next year and 95 cents the year after, until the price was reduced to 85 cents within the next 4 years.

Whether the Secretary will be able to do that remains to be seen, but he has that authority provided. However, in exercising that authority there must not be an adverse effect on the production and price structure of poultry, cattle, hogs.

I hope that the Secretary will follow that advice, though it is not mandatory that he do so. The suggestion is written into the report. It is our hope that he will exercise the right.

Another suggestion made by the Department was adopted. I believe it may result in greater participation by the farmers who now do not participate. That suggestion is to pay farmers a larger sum in order to have them take more land out of production. The Secretary has the authority to make such payments, and we are told that the evidence shows that if he uses the authority, the withdrawal of land from production can be done without increasing the cost of the program. It will make the program more attractive to the noncooperatives to take more of their land out of production by providing a greater payment. The distinguished Senator from Iowa [Mr. MILLER], who is a new member of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, made a good suggestion. It is an alternative plan to the one the Secretary of Agriculture now follows. The SenaThe Senator's suggestion is to lay more stress on taking out of production land with high corn yields instead of land that is not so productive. I mention that as an alternative, in the hope that the Secretary may be in a position to find ways and means of using the plan suggested by the distinguished Senator from Iowa.

The only fault that I find with the plan of the Senator from Iowa is that he bases his proposal on a price support and does away with direct payments. I recall his stating that it was his hope that the present program with respect to crop land adjustment could be used to a larger extent in order to take much of the productive land out of cultivation, thereby substantially reducing the cost of the program and also the surplus. It may be that that would work; I do not know. But I hope the Secretary of Agriculture will use that tool if the tools provided in the bill do not do a better job than they have done in the past.

mittee pointed out on page 5 of the report, only 47 percent of the farmers, nationwide, are in the feed grain program. Iowa stands very high in the number of farmers participating.

I wish to emphasize again, as I did in committee, that regardless of what the Secretary of Agriculture does with the loan price, whether he leaves it at $1.05, where it is today, or decreases it to $1 or 95 or 90 cents, I doubt whether there will be a larger number of farmers in Iowa who will come into the program, for this reason:

There are three different kinds of farmers who were not interested in coming into the program. One is the group of small farmers whose acreage is so small that they do not dare to cut back their acreage if they wish to provide a decent living for themselves and their families. They are having a difficult time doing that now. They are not interested in coming into the program, and having to cut back their acreage.

Mr. ELLENDER. Are they farmers who feed direct to animals? Mr. MILLER. No; it is the group of small grain farmers who cannot afford to reduce their acreage.

The second group comprises those who have a relatively low base corn acreage. They followed the crop planning practices recommended by the Department of Agriculture for a long time, practices which involved the rotation of crops and the planting of a certain amount of acreage to hay, a certain amount of acreage to corn, and a certain amount of acreage to oats.

They had neighbors who overplanted in corn, at least so far as the practices recommended by the Department of Agriculture were concerned. These farmers ended with a high base acreage of corn for 1959-60. The farmers who followed the good practices recommended by the Department of Agriculture ended with small base acreage. They believe they have been discriminated against by having lower base acreage than their neighbors who overplanted in corn. They are not interested in coming into the program either. Finally, there is a large group of farmers who are going to feed all their own feed grain production and take own feed grain production and take their chances in the livestock market.

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. The Senator referred to Iowa and its corn production. I would like to make a few comments.

Sixty-five percent of Iowa farmers are in the program for 1965. Therefore, I do not believe that the Iowa farmers have any apologies to make for the degree of their compliance, because as the Senator pointed out, and as the com

compliance is concerned. The job will not be done nearly so well by increasing the number of compliances as by having those who comply, comply more effectively.

The Senator from Louisiana put his finger on the difficulty when he said that finger on the difficulty when he said that 65 percent of the Iowa farmers are in the program, yet 25 percent of the total acres are being taken out, and 15 percent of the corn acreage is being taken out. That is precisely the difficulty.

We should not be so much concerned about numbers as about inducing farmers to comply to a greater extent by taking acres out of production. That is what I find to be the main difficulty with the present program and the program which is contained in subtitle (A) of the bill.

It is this defect that the alternate program, which the committee also put into the bill, is designed to remedy.

I appreciate the Senator's comments that if the program does not turn out to be effective-and by "effective" we certainly mean, I am sure, effective in reducing production and doing so at a reasonable cost to the taxpayers-and if it continues to be the case, the committee intends for the Secretary of Agriculture to adopt the alternative plan, or at least to give it a fair trial.

I recognize that this is something new insofar as the approach is concerned. Farmers would receive increased diversion payments on their acreage with no production payments, but the program set forth in the alternative program is designed to make the diversion payments attractive enough to encourage farmers to come in, and be substantially as attractive as the first program. courage farmers willing to comply to the same time, it is calculated to entake more acres out, and to do so preferably on a 5-year program, leaving the same acreage out year after year, and therefore be more effective in reducing production.

At

I believe the costs can also be reduced, long as the Senator referred to my but I thought it well to point out, so State, what my best judgment is as to the real problem in Iowa. I doubt very much if the Secretary of Agriculture will Cooper amendment-which I could not use the authority contained in the question or that it would result in support because of my views on this much greater numbers of compliers because of the three groups of farmers to which the Senator referred.

Mr. ELLENDER. I appreciate the from Iowa, but, as I said, there is an views of my good friend, the Senator alternative. I hope that the Secretary of whether it would not do a better job than Agriculture will study it and find out books for almost 4 years, and which it is the program that has been on the statute now proposed to extend for 4 more years.

The new element contained in the bill, to make it possible for the Secretary of Agriculture to pay a little more to the farmer than he has in the past, might make it desirable for the farmer not to plant as much land as he has in the past. Under present law, as the Senator knows, in order for a farmer to become eligible for price support payments, he must divert at least 20 percent of his base acreage to conserving practices.

Under the law, the Secretary has the right to pay from zero to as much as 50 percent of what the farmer would make on that land to keep 20 percent out of cultivation. On the remainder of the permitted acreage the Secretary makes price support payments, which this year amount to 20 cents per bushel, but the

trouble is that in order to obtain payment, the farmer must plant the permitted acreage. What we are trying to do is to bunch up the payments so that it will be possible for him to obtain the same payments, if he did not plant the extra acreage.

It is a problem. The evidence shows that it is possible for the Secretary to get more acreage out with about the same amount of payments. Whether that will be done remains to be seen; but, in any event, that is one suggestion made by the Department.

I can well see that it might work, but one of the suggestions which we made, which I hope the Secretary will use, relates to the reduction of the support price on corn. This year with corn supported at $1.05, with direct payments of 20 cents a bushel, about 37 million acres were diverted from production.

However, notwithstanding the fact that about 37 million acres of feed grains were diverted the production will still be approximately 200 million bushels more than in 1960. That demonstrates to me that the program is not working well, because we are cutting back 37 million acres from the base, and yet production on the remainder of the corn and feed acres planted has increased and the cost of the program this year-that is, 1965has been estimated at $1.6 billion. I am hopeful that the Secretary will use these new tools, and will study the one we have made available under the amendment of the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield further?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MONDALE in the chair). Does the Senator from Louisiana yield to the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. ELLENDER. Iyield.

Mr. MILLER. The Senator's point is well taken. Notwithstanding the inNotwithstanding the increase in taking the number of acres out of production, we are to have an increase in production. But I wish to emphasize that this proves the point I have been arguing for a long time, that we should not be so concerned about the numbers game-either the numbers of compliers or the numbers of acres as we should be with the quality of the acres. If the quality of acreage had been taken out this year, with the increased acreage diversion to which the Senator has referred, I am confident that we would not have any increase in production. If anything, there would be a decrease in production.

Mr. ELLENDER. We shall see in the future. Let me point out, as the Senator from Iowa knows, that it is almost incredible that two States in the Union, Iowa and Illinois, should produce 41 percent of the corn grown in this country.

If I had my hat on, I would take it off to the Senator, because that is a great compliment to those two great States. I did not realize that until the hearings a few months ago, wherein it was shown that Iowa and Illinois accounted for 41 percent of the corn produced in this country.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, let me say to my friend the senior Senator from Louisiana that because I represent one of

those two States, I like to think that I know something about the problem involved in the production of feed grain. I like to think that I know something about the 35 percent of the Iowa farmers who are not in the program.

I cannot overemphasize the fact that there are the three groups to which I have referred. I doubt very much that they will come into the program, regardless of what is done with the loan price. I have serious doubts that any reduction of the loan price can be effected without the serious disruption of the livestock markets.

The Cooper amendment has that proviso written into it, that the loan price shall not be lowered if it will disrupt the shall not be lowered if it will disrupt the livestock market. To that extent, it is all to the good.

I believe that, so long as the Senator has made his statement, I should in fairness, representing the State of Iowa, ness, representing the State of Iowa, point out what, in my best judgment, is the difficulty with the present program and how we may have difficulty in solving it if we continue along the same ing it if we continue along the same road that we have been traveling. That road that we have been traveling. That is not to say that the program that has been in effect substantially since 1961, been in effect substantially since 1961, and which was passed during my first year in the Senate, is not much better than what we had before. I was never particularly impressed by the program that was on the books before 1961. However, merely because it is better than that program does not mean that it has been successful in attaining the objectives of bringing about a balance between production and consumption.

The Senator talked about a cost of $6 per bushel and reducing the stock on hand. I invite the attention of the Senator to the fact that the reduction in stockage is completely attributable to the reduction in the production of barley, which was not contained in the feed grains program at all, and to the subgrains program at all, and to the substantial increase in exports and domestic stantial increase in exports and domestic utilization.

At this time, I want to give the highest of praise to the work done by the Department of Agriculture in stepping up our exports of feed grains. They up our exports of feed grains. They have done a wonderful job on this prohave done a wonderful job on this program. However, at the same time, I invite the attention of my friend the senior Senator from Louisiana to the fact that since 1961, while the costs of the farm program and feed grains have been going up, we have had an increase in the production of feed grains of almost 17 million tons.

I believe that we are going in the wrong direction, and, if we have an increase such as has been mentioned by the senior Senator from Louisiana to be the estimated increase for this year, we shall be continuing to go in the wrong

direction.

That is why I know that the Senator is concerned about the cost of the program. I am not interested in increasing the cost of the program. I merely wish to see a more effective reduction in production because, until that has been done, our farmers will have an impossible task in seeking to obtain a decent and fair price for their production.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, as the Senator knows, during our committee deliberations, I stated that this program was being extended for 4 years and that such a program would be very costly. If it continues to increase at its present rate, I estimate that by the time of expiration of the extension which we are now considering, the cost of the program might exceed $2 billion a year instead of the estimated $1.6 billion for 1965. However, in any event, since I was unable to get the committee to vote for my program to limit production through acreage controls, marketing quotas, and penalties for overproduction, we put into the bill two or three more tools-one that was presented by the junior Senator from Iowa-in the hope that the Secretary of Agriculture will take a hard look at this program and try to do something as soon as he can to reduce the cost of the program. With the increase of sales of our corn and other feed grains abroad, it would seem to me that there should be little necessity for a program such as we now have, except to stabilize the price.

It seems to me that if our production now is less than the amount we sell, at least this year or next year, we might be able to reduce our surplus to normalcy. The moment we do that, the price of corn and other feed grains ought to be good, and the necessity for these direct payments could be curtailed to a large extent and we could reduce the cost of the program.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. MILLER. I appreciate the patience of the Senator. However, there is another matter which I think is related to the problem that we have been discussing.

We are concerned about having an effective feed grains program which would help to reduce the surplus and the production.

On page 20 of the committee report, it is pointed out, in connection with the wheat program, that the language still in the basic law will continue; namely, that the use of wheat for beef shall be to such an extent and subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines will not impair the effective operation of the program for feed grains or wheat.

I read with some concern of the increase in the use of beef wheat which has been occurring. During the 1960-64 base period, the average quantity of beef wheat was 41 million bushels a year. Last year it was 72 million bushels. It is estimated that it will increase to 95 million bushels this year.

Does the Senator not believe that this increase in the use of beef wheat has a tendency to impair the effectiveness of the feed grains program, and that the Secretary of Agriculture should so arrange the wheat program as to not increase the usage of beef wheat?

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator, but the Senator from Iowa was not on the committee when we first discussed the particular language to which he referred.

it from the administration bill.

Of course, there were a number of reasons why the title was stricken. One was that in effect, there was a curtailment of acreage from 1.6 million base acres to about 1.350 million acres. The rice farmers could not stand that cut from the minimum acreage provided by law.

Another reason advanced was that the ricegrowers would be paid for their crop, more or less, by raising the price of rice to the consumer.

There was a fairly good overall case made to the effect that it would not cost the average consumer more than 5 or 6 cents a year, but when the committee examined the witnesses who came to testify, it was shown that the consumption of rice in Puerto Rico, for example,

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that my friend the Senator from Kansas is bringing out that point. Has the Senator any idea about how much of the increase to which I have referred, from 72 million bushels last year to an estimated 95 million bushels this year, is attributable to the growing of wheat on feed grain acreage?

Mr. CARLSON. I cannot give the Senator from Iowa the figures, but I know, from my own knowledge, that much of this feed grain base acreage was transferred to wheat. I assure him that is an advantage to those States that have feed grain producing areas. I know that to be a fact, but I cannot give the percentages.

Mr. MILLER. I can certainly see that. The main point I wished to bring out was that this information is available to the Secretary of Agriculture. He would recognize the truth of what the Senator from Kansas had to say. But I am sure it is intended that, to the extent it may impinge on the attempts to reduce feed grains, he should not have permitted use of wheat as feed except under conditions to which the Senator from Kansas has referred, or in the case of drought or disaster situations in the Northwest. Mr. ELLENDER. As the Senator from Kansas pointed out, it works both ways. If wheatland is planted to feed grains or milo, it decreases the production of wheat. The same thing occurs when corn allotments are reduced. It reduces corn production.

It is my hope that the Secretary will do the very thing the Senator is suggesting. As I recall, this exchange was made more or less to give advantage to the farmers of the Northwest who grow much wheat. It was too expensive then

pounds. The same situation, to some extent, prevailed in California, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Rice, like wheat, is more or less a poor man's food.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, the evidence also showed that there are many Puerto Ricans living in the city of New York and that the provision would have increased their family food bill a good deal, because the per capita use of rice among Puerto Ricans there was in excess of 90 pounds per capita. So the Senate followed the House in striking the title dealing with rice.

In order to protect the income of rice farmers of the Nation, the committee adopted two suggestions I made. The first is to prevent the Department of Agriculture from widening the value factors between the various varieties of rice. Today the difference between long grain and short grain is $1.50.

The purpose of the amendment is either to keep it at that level or to reduce it, if possible, which would thereby result in a greater average price for the rice producer.

Then we added a second amendment. Under the law as it now stands the minimum acreage of rice is fixed at 1,600,000 acres. The national rice allotment now is about 1,800,000 acres. The allotment was increased in order to provide more rice to feed the starving people in southeast Asia.

Of course, the ricegrowers responded to the request of their Government and agreed cheerfully to produce more rice for that purpose. And now it seems there may be a move to reduce the acreage of rice.

The amendment provides that if the present acreage is reduced to the minimum acreage, or by any amount, the producers of rice shall be paid for not

producing, to the same extent as applies to the wheat farmers as well as corn and other feed grain producers.

Unless there are further questions, I shall proceed to title IV, dealing with wool.

As Senators will recall, when the Senate enacted the wool bill several years ago, the goal was to induce the wool producers of our Nation to produce as much as 300 million pounds of wool a year, and the woolgrowers were paid direct payments in an effort to attain that goal. The funds used were derived from 70 percent of the tariff collected on wool and woolen goods that came into the country.

In its proposal, the administration agreed to extend the Wool Act for 2 years, but also requested authority to make it possible for the small woolgrowers to receive a higher price for producing wool than the larger woolgrowers.

At page 41 of the original bill, there was a provision that, on the first 2,000 pounds, the level of support based on parity should be not less than 75 nor more than 90 percent of parity.

On the next 5,000 pounds, the support would be at not less than 70 nor more than 85 percent of parity. On all wool produced in excess of 7,000 pounds, the payment would range from 65 to not more than 85 percent of parity.

When wool was considered by the House of Representatives, the small wool grower provision was stricken, and the House added a provision of its own which guaranteed to all producers a minimum of not less than 77 percent of parity, which really amounts to 64.1 cents per pound for wool. Today the price of wool to the grower including payments is 62

cents.

The Senate considered the House amendment, but had a provision of its own to offer to the wool growers. The committee decided to increase the price of wool on a formula included in the socalled Bible bill, which was before the committee for some time.

The Bible amendment would make it possible for the price to the wool grower to be based on the cost of production. Under the Bible amendment, the price of wool would be increased the first year to 65 cents or perhaps more, and as the cost of production increased, the price to the wool grower would likewise increase.

The Department objected to that, and I believe still objects to it, and clings to its own version, of making it possible to pay more to the small producers than to all producers in a like manner.

In addition to the Bible formula, at the suggestion of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], the committee voted to include a provision which would make it possible for the Department to pay 5 cents a pound more to all wool growers who produced 1,000 pounds of wool or less. In essence that is the wool provision now included in the bill.

The record shows that under the House provision, if the Senate were to agree to it, the additional cost of the program would be about $22 million. If the Bible program were adopted, the