Mr. WATTS. No matter whether he yields 1 bushel or 40? Mr. WOOLLEY. For those people who say they want strict controls and high price supports, fix up a program that is honestly— Mr. WATTS. What price supports would you recommend with such a program? Mr. WOOLLEY. We think that the present price-support program has plenty of inducement in it. Mr. WATTS. The 75 to 90? Mr. WOOLLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. WATTS. Would you increase the penalty on excess wheat? Mr. WOOLLEY. All people recommend the penalty on wheat be placed at 75 percent of the support price. Mr. WATTS. The same as tobacco? Mr. WOOLLEY. That is right. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Munn, do you have something you want to add here? Mr. MUNN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. This million-acre increase that is indicated here in the statistical information, that Oklahoma gained in this period of time since 1939, would appear to make it look like the wheat producers in Oklahoma ought to be pretty well satisfied. But actually, the real wheatproducing area, the longtime wheat-producing area, in Oklahoma, got very little of this. Practically all of it, well, the majority of it at least, went to the southwestern counties which had previously been predominately cotton counties. And this was a transition from cotton to wheat, actually. We traded cotton acreage for wheat acreage, is what brought this about. As Congressman Belcher knows, there is very little of that in the real wheat area. Our allotment was still low, and one of the real concerns of our people in the old stable wheat production area is being able to stay in the wheat business with the spread of this production all over the Nation as it is now being handled. Mr. ALBERT. Thank you, Mr. Munn. Mr. KRUEGER. Right in connection with that, if you will yield to me, I am a little disappointed that North Dakota has lost over 990,000 acres and Oklahoma has gained 1 million acres. I think you are serving Oklahoma here in preference to North Dakota, and the same thing happened in Colorado, in my old friend Bill Hill's State. Now, they gained 1,400,000 acres, where Kansas lost 429,000 acres, and North Dakota has lost 990,000 acres. If we are going to shift acreage and have wheat, I think North Dakota has done a good job in reducing acreage, but other States have picked up the acreage. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Krueger, if you will yield to Mr. Munn-did not that happen during the period when there were no allotments, southwestern Oklahoma began going into wheat in a big way because cotton production was going down and they came in during free periods? Wasn't that largely the reason for it? Mr. MUNN. Yes, partly. Mr. ALBERT. Not the program? Mr. MUNN. Well, not necessarily, maybe, the program. But actually what happened down there, they had both wheat allotments and cotton allotments. Their wheat allotments were lower somewhat, and we came into a period when we did not have allotments in wheat, they put practically everything into wheat and disregarded their cotton allotments to the extent that in many instances they did not have cropland enough to plant anything like their total allotment on cotton. And so as the history built up over the years, by them putting in all of this land into wheat, why the allotment naturally shifted that way just as a result of history. Mr. BELCHER. In addition to that, of course, we have always permitted excess acres as wheat history. That is the very law that we passed last year. That is what has caused as much shift, I mean, in addition to the 15-acre minimum. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Hill. Mr. HILL. I had another question I wanted to ask, but I will begin right where we left off. You cannot depend on any of the figures, to look at that map. I mean, the figures that you have on appendix tables 3 is nothing, that to take a tough glance at it is something. Now following Mr. Albert, Colorado did the same thing. We were in violation according to that map. We are not. We came into production because of two things, not only the war and a request but because of big machinery. Do not forget that. Where one man today can take care-I am going to exaggerate purposely-from 500 to 1,000 acres, and the only time he needs extra help, if he is smart, is when he hauls it to the elevator. Let's do not forget that. Now some of these folks who have increased these acreages do not have that advantage. I notice your figures. I am going to call attention to this and then pass it. You cannot believe a word they say just to look at them. Look at Kansas, it only dropped 3.9 percent, but it dropped 429,000 acres by that little drop. And the State of Alabama. Alabama picked up 390.9 percent, but it had no acreage to begin with. Now you cannot trust the figures. So what your trouble is-if you will notice, Missouri dropped 400,000 acres plus; Kansas dropped 429,000 plus; Illinois dropped 400,000 plus; Indiana, 344,000 plus; that the State of Michigan comes along, which you do not consider at all a wheat State, and they increase 44 percent, or 295,000 acres. So just forget the figures because those figures are I am just reading your figures. It is a terrific table, but you cannot depend on it just the same. Colorado increased and Őklahoma increased. They did not increase for the same reason. We increased because of conditions that existed at that time, and they still maintain. We can lick the world on producing wheat, and you won't let us. I think every wheat farmer in Oklahoma has a just right to complain. Michigan has no business increasing their wheat almost 300,000 acres. Now let that sink in your mind. Now what business has the State of Alabama to have the opportunity to increase their's four times? But it did not amount to anything, if you take it all out, because they started with 4,000 acres and wound up with 18,000. Mr. JOHNSON. Will the gentleman from Colorado yield? Mr. HILL. Well, I will, and I went to get on to something else. Mr. JOHNSON. I just wanted to state, as long as you are going after the States that increased, you might give Wisconsin credit for going down in production. I am just wondering if Colorado did the same thing in cows, if they went down or went up. Mr. HILL. We stayed even. were. We are 4 percent behind what we Now let's go back to another thing. I do not agree with Mr. Belcher or Mr. Woolley. I want to make that plain. I do not agree for 1 minute that there is a pound of surplus wheat. I am talking about flour wheat, food wheat. But I do agree there is plenty of misguided people handling the program of wheat. Wheat and cotton, in my personal opinion, do not fit in with any other crop production. There is not enough cloth in the world, that is number 1, cloth of the cheap cotton type. There are too many people hungry for wheat in the world. That is number 2. And we should not sit down at these tables and figure that we are going to put wheat and cotton along with corn, which is altogether different. Now I would like to see the Farm Bureau, the Grange, and the Farmers Union, all farm organizations, and this committee, see if we cannot work out a plan to get into a world movement for wheat for food-not animal food, and that would include Canada. Now you say we have reached the end of export wheat. I just think that is about the most foolish statement anyone could make. I am finding no fault. All your life you have heard of the importance of bread. If these United States and Canada wish to convert the world to the Christian philosophy of living, there is one fundamental thing they could do and that is to give away surplus wheat to people, not governments. Now you just let this sink into your mind, and do not start arguing with me about it because your arguing fails when you consider the life which you live and the many blessings we have in abundance compared to the scarcity of food and fiber in other countries. Now I think cotton is almost parallel. Why don't we spend our time here, in place of saying this is impossible, by saying to this our country, we should give or plan a program—now I do not mean give it to the Nation-do not forget, I never said that--but give it to the people. We have been giving it to nations and to industries in the Nation, assisting inflation when we should have said some kind of a welfare organization should be prepared to give away our abundance in wheat. Now it won't carry over to other products, but certainly we should never lose sight of wheat as basic food. Mr. ALBERT. I would like to hear you explain your program, and I wish you would introduce a bill covering it and we will have a hearing on it. Mr. HILL. I have it lined up. Mr. ALBERT. All right, sir. Mr. HILL. And I hope the Farm Bureau will come along and say, "We need that type of a sales organization for wheat for food." Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Smith. me. Mr. HILL. "Give it away," if you want to call it that. That suits Mr. ALBERT. We appreciate that kind of a contribution. Mr. Smith, do you have any questions? Mr. SMITH. I do. Mr. ALBERT. All right, sir. Mr. SMITH. I want to say this: I have tried to feed people who have never eaten wheat before, and you cannot make people eat wheat until they have been educated to it and that takes a long period of time. Mr. HILL. That is right. Mr. SMITH. There are millions of people in the world who have never tasted wheat. Mr. HILL. It is time we taught them. Mr. BELCHER. Would you yield there for just one comment? We are not educating the people in the United States because every day we are eating less bread in this country. According to your theory we must be getting less Christian. Mr. HILL. It has nothing to do with it. You see how they can twist your arguments when you try to help people. Mr. BELCHER. You are all right until someone asks you a question. Mr. MARSHALL. I live at the present time in eastern Nebraska, but my wheat farm is 8 miles from the Colorado border, and the counties north of the Kansas line. Mr. SMITH. Over the last 10 years you have had a good market because you have been able to produce high-protein wheat, haven't you? Mr. MARSHALL. That is right, high-quality wheat. Mr. SMITH. And this eastern Nebraska wheat, when you say the quality is low, you mean by low quality that it is not good for human consumption, but it is equally as good as any other wheat for feed grain consumption? Mr. MARSHALL. Oh, yes. It is lower in protein, it is not as high a quality bread wheat-western Nebraska, Colorado, western Kansas, and that area. Mr. SMITH. What does it cost you to produce a bushel of wheat in your area? Mr. MARSHALL. How is that? Mr. SMITH. What is your average cost, year in and year out, to produce a bushel of wheat in your area? Mr. MARSHALL. This varies by different years, of course, but I am producing wheat for right at $1 a bushel-have for the last 3 years. That is the actual out-of-pocket cost. And I hire it cut, hire it planted, I hired everything. Mr. SMITH. What is the value of your land per acre in that area? Mr. MARSHALL. About $125. Mr. SMITH. Now if Congress were to adopt a flexible parity formula, say 50 percent, that is what you would get for wheat, how many acres would we reduce wheat acreage in America by reducing parity to 50 percent? Mr. MARSHALL. I do not know. Mr. SMITH. Your organization must have tried to project that, as to how many acres it would reduce. Mr. Woolley, can you tell me? Mr. WOOLLEY. All we have done, we have taken advantage of studies that have been made by people that have spent their lives studying wheat, and it is their considered opinion that if you would have a price-support level that would be more representative of the cost of production of the areas of the country that can produce it at a cheaper level, that you would discourage the production in the other areas. Now Dr. Montgomery, who is the head of the Economics and Sociology Department at the Kansas State University-I am sure you are acquainted with him-made a number of studies. We have taken advantage of the work he has done, and we have taken advantage of the work that Mrs. Farnsworth has done at Stanford University on wheat, and others, such as people at Michigan State and other institutions throughout the country. Our recommendations are based on the premise that if the price support is lowered, that wheat will be produced in the areas where it can be produced the most efficiently and production will cease in other areas. Now as to a definitive study on our part as to just how much would go out of what State, we have not done it. Mr. SMITH. How much would acreage be cut in your area, Mr. Marshall, if they reduce it down to 50 percent of parity? Mr. MARSHALL. Eastern Nebraska? Mr. SMITH. No, Western Nebraska, the high plains area, the wheatproducing area. Mr. MARSHALL. Not very much of it in western Nebraska. In eastern Nebraska they will quit. Mr. SMITH. In other words, your theory is that if we get this parity formula down to, say 50 percent, that the high plains area, the real high-protein wheat areas of the country that have been historically that way, they would get the benefit of it and you would drive out of the market place, so to speak, the eastern Nebraska, and from there to the Appalachain Mountains, the people who are now producing wheat. Mr. MARSHALL. It would provide an opportunity for the man who cannot produce anything but wheat to have a market for his product, where the alternate crops could take over in the other areas. Mr. SMITH. What about after 1960 throwing all farm programs out of the window, all parity price supports of every form and description, what would that do to the wheat producer of the high plains area? Mr. MARSHALL. Well, if we have a billion and a half or two billion of wheat in the bins, what it would do to them under these circumstances would be entirely different than if we were able to dispose of this surplus prior to that time. And to say what it would do in 1960 would be just purely an opinion because Mr. SMITH. That is, to serve notice now, beginning in 1960--we have 3-crop years, and after 1960 Mr. MARSHALL. Well, our recommendation here is to give the people an opportunity to vote on a lower price support and no acreage allotments, which is the type of thing you are talking about-if we take 2, 3, or 5 years to get rid of the surplus. Mr. SMITH. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I have not called on Mr. Mikkelson, I am wondering of Mr. Mikkelson might have anything to add. Mr. KRUEGER. I might say to the committee, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mikkelson is a very successful farmer in my State, and he knows what farming is from the bottom on up. I would like to hear from him. |