Mr. JENNINGS. What is the outlook for your wool pool this year, have you received any bids on your wool this year?

Mr. UPSAL. It is very low. They tell me it will be somewhere from around 37 to 40 cents a pound. And then they will advance the payment.

Mr. JENNINGS. How do they account for the fact that it is so much lower this year than it was last year?

Mr. UPSAL. Well, I have not heard any reason why, except that the market is down.

Mr. JENNINGS. Well, I think that is probably true and some of the other companies still have the wool they purchased last year. Is that one of the reasons for the low this year, do you think?

Mr. UPSAL. Well, I would not be in a position to answer that, Congressman, I would not know. I have not heard any arguments in that direction, making those statements that that might be the cause of the low price.

Mr. JENNINGS. Do you think this program is going to continue to receive unanimous approval if it declines year after year? Say it is 37 this year and it goes down to 27 next year? Of course, the farmer is going to get his share from the Government. If it goes down to 17 next year, if perchance some collaboration should enter into the program and it comes down to 17 or 25 cents, do you think that the program is going to continue to be acceptable?

Mr. UPSAL. Well, I know, I am sure, that the farmers, or the producer of wool is not going to complain as long as he is assured of a price up here. Maybe the consumers, the people, the cost of a suit of clothes ought to go down if the market price of wool is down. Shouldn't it? Would not that be helpful to the people as a whole? Mr. JENNINGS. I should think it would be.

That is all. I just wanted to get some views. Some of the things that I brought up have been discussed in conversations that I have listened to that some of my farmers have been carrying on, and I just wondered if those things existed out in South Dakota.

Mr. UPSAL. Not to my knowledge. I have not heard of any discussions along those lines.

Mr. POAGE. Dr. Dixon.

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Upsal, we are all in pretty much agreement on the wool program, it has been so satisfying and successful. Now we cannot say the same with regard to the program for other crops. Should we hold up this wool program until such time as we can get together on the other crops?

Mr. UPSAL. Well, we certainly do not want to lose the wool program. However, we believe that the sooner we can get an overall comprehensive farm program dealing with all commodities, protecting all producers-I think that is what we are looking forward to.

Mr. DIXON. Well, you have not answered by question. Should we hold it up until we can pass a program for the other crops?

Mr. UPSAL. Let's not let it expire, in other words, let's keep the wool program, even if we just have to extend it from one year to another until the time when it can be incorporated.

Mr. DIXON. Would you treat legislatively a crop that is in short supply just the same as you would a crop that is in great surplus? Mr. UPSAL. Well, would it be justifiable to say that if we happened to be producers of a crop that is in short, or that we do not have a

surplus of, we should have better treatment than people who are producing crops happen to be in surplus? That is what is in my mind, or in our minds. Shouldn't we all be treated fairly on these com

modities?

Because I am a producer of wheat also. That is my biggest income. We have cut down our acreage, I have reduced my acreage 36 or 37 percent, hoping that that will help to reduce. But that is our crop, not wool. That is just a little side item on my place. I have a band of about 150 ewes. But it is a nice income on the side.

Mr. DIXON. Well, you asked me a question. I think that your wheat has been treated unfairly, and to go on with all these Government supports will continue to treat it unfairly. You look upon the fair treatment by the Government in the amount of Government intervention, and I disagree because the crops that are in the worst trouble are those that have had the most help.

Don't you think that wool is a strategic material?

Mr. UPSAL. Yes, I do.

Mr. DIXON. Will you treat it the same as a nonstrategic material, and wait until you could solve the nonstrategic program before giving wool anything?

Mr. UPSAL. Well, I do not feel that wool is more strategic than wheat, as far as our overall needs, for, you know, our everyday walk in life.

Mr. DIXON. Suppose we got into a war today, can we produce wheat to sustain us?

Mr. UPSAL. Yes.

Mr. DIXON. What would happen with wool, where would we get it from? We have no surplus.

Mr. UPSAL. Well we are fortunate. I imagine there is plenty of wool in the world that we can buy.

Mr. DIXON. Yes, but how far would we have to bring it and at what risk?

Mr. UPSAL. Well, we did it before.

Mr. DIXON. Under great hazard and peril.

Mr. UPSAL. Yes, I will agree to that.

But we are hoping that this wool program will increase the production in our sheep industry.

Now I also wanted to say that raising sheep is pretty much of, should I say, more or less a technical operation-much more than any other livestock that I have experience with. And that is why maybe many, many ranchers and farmers are just a little bit careful in not going into it, because there is a chance of great losses there.

Mr. DIXON. Are we going to increase this production if we hold this fine bill, and wait until more of the sheep people go out of business, or are we going to increase the production through giving them some security, this legislation which we are all willing to pass.

Mr. UPSAL. That is what we are seeking to do in this wool program, aren't we? I am asking a question.

Mr. DIXON. Yes, but we would like to get it passed and not subject it to the hazards of legislation for other crops, hazards of delay in getting the bill approved and having it vetoed.

Mr. UPSAL. I agree to that. We certainly want to hang on to this, but we want it included in an all-inclusive farm program. Because, just because I have a few sheep on my place, that does not put me in a

position of preference with the Government to see that my sheep, my wool, is protected and the rest of my crops are

Mr. POAGE. That is how everyone connected with the other crops feel, each one of them wants to be first, and each one of them would like to be passed ahead of everyone else so they will not have to be bothered with the objections to someone else's program.

Everyone would like to run first, but they cannot all run first.
Mr. UPSAL. That is right.

Mr. POAGE. At least the number of the members of the committee feel they all ought to run together.

Mr. UPSAL. Fine, that is where it belongs.

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, two wrongs do not make a right.

Mr. POAGE. Two wrongs do not make a right, and 2 and 2 make 4, and what does that have to do with what he said? What wrongs are you talking about?

Mr. DIXON. We would be doing a great injustice to confuse this issue on wool with that of other crops, and maybe subject it to the hazards of legislation for other crops where opinion is divided and successful legislation is doubtful. This only adds one more wrong to the present list.

Mr. POAGE. There are a great many people who feel that you are doing a great wrong in delaying the solution for cotton, delaying the solution for feed grains, delaying the solution for milk, and delaying the solution for wheat, and I think those people are just as entitled to their views

Mr. DIXON. But opinion is divided there and chances of passage are slim, and is not divided on the Wool Act. It could be passed easily

if given a chance to stand on its own merits.

Mr. POAGE. Opinion is divided all the way along. I have not found anything that is unanimous in the way of agriculture.

Are there any further questions?

If not, we thank you very much, Mr. Upsal.

I believe that concludes all those who have asked to be heard. The following statements have been submitted and without objection they are inserted in the record at this point.

(The statements referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. HAMER H. BUDGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as a cosponsor of legislation to extend the National Wool Act of 1954, I urge that you favorably report a bill which would accomplish this and provide for the continued production of wool in the United States. I am sure you know that in dealing with wool we are faced with a situation wherein the national production is deficient and that we must take action to prevent the further decline of this vital commodity in our Nation. The present situation in which the woolgrowers find themselves is not one of their own making but rather has developed as a result of war and postwar measures which have affected adversely the production of wool. As pertains to the entire problem, I of course would much prefer the raising of tariffs which would curtail imports and eliminate some of the unfavorable competition in comparison with foreign production. It appears, however, impossible to obtain relief by this means and for that reason I favor the substitute method now being used by the Department of Agriculture to provide incentives for our domestic production. There are problems in this program and I am sure many inequities, but I for one do not believe that the woolgrowers are to blame for the dilemma in which they find themselves today and for that reason I favor the participation in this program by the Federal Government. There is some urgency for the extension of the act before this Congress adjourns since, although it does not expire until

next year, wool production is not a seasonal crop and must be planned long in advance.

STATEMENT OF HON. B. F. SISK, OF THE 12TH DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

THE STATE OF

Mr. CHAIRMAN: May I add my voice to those urging the committee to approve extension of the National Wool Act of 1954. There is ample evidence this act is greatly assisting in the regeneration and stabilization of our domestic wool industry. It was originally limited to 4 years so that Congress could reappraise its operation. Now we have had a chance to look over the results and they are good-meriting your approval of at least another 4-year extension.

I would like also to point out the Wool Act has set up what might be termed a pilot program in the agricultural field. It is built on the two-price concept and a great many people are keenly interested in the possibility of finding a way out of the difficulties in other agricultural fields through similar plans. I strongly urge your favorable action on a deserving piece of legislation.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., May 20, 1958.

Hon. W. R. POAGE,

Chairman, Livestock and Feed Grains Subcommittee,
Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I respectfully urge favorable consideration of the wool act extension which your committee is now studying and ask that this statement be made a part of the record of the hearings now underway.

I particularly favor the wool legislation since it contains the compensatory payment feature that I would like to see made a basic part of all farm law. May I refer you to my bill, H. R. 6841 which calls for "parity income-equivalent prices" among other things, as amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. I feel this feature is essential to sound farm legislation and the permanent solution to current farm problems.

There are two points I urge the committee to include in this wool legislation consideration:

1. The wool legislation should be made a part of the proposed comprehensive farm legislation.

2. The wool legislation should be timed to expire the same date as other farmcommodity legislation.

With these two provisions included, I would very much like to see the present wool legislation reported favorably to our full committee.

Kindest regards,

Sincerely,

Congresswoman COYA KNUTSON.

Mr. POAGE. The committee stands in recess.

(Whereupon, at 11:45 a. m., the subcommittee recessed, to recon

vene subject to the call of the Chair.)

EXTEND NATIONAL WOOL ACT OF 1954

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1958

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK AND FEED GRAINS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met pursuant to notice at 9:35 a. m., in room 1310 New House Office Building, Hon. W. R. Poage (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Poage (presiding), Jennings, Matthews, Hill, Hoeven, Harvey.

Also present: Representatives Abernathy, Jones, Hagen, Johnson, McIntire, Williams, Dixon, Quie, and Fisher.

Mabel C. Downey, clerk.

Mr. POAGE. The committee will please come to order.

The committee is meeting this morning to further consider extension of the Wool Act, and we have with us here this morning Mr. Woolley, representing the Farm Bureau Federation.

Mr. Woolley.

STATEMENT OF FRANK K. WOOLLEY, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. WOOLLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Frank K. Woolley, and I am legislative counsel for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

I am sorry that we did not get an opportunity to prepare a statement for this specific hearing, but we did prepare a statement for the Senate committee, and in that statement we addressed ourselves to S. 2861. My understanding is that the bills before this subcommittee, that are being considered, are practically identical bills as those by Mr. Hagen and other members that have introduced bills. There are a number of them. All of them are for the purpose, as I understand it, of extending the bill for a period of 4 years. Some of them may extend it indefinitely.

Our resolutions on the subject, adopted by the voting delegates at the last annual meeting, read as follows:

"We are opposed to production payments as a substitute for price supports as a matter of bringing income into agriculture." That is our basic resolution with respect to production payments. On wool, our resolutions read as follows:

"In 1954 we reluctantly supported production payments for wool to stimulate domestic production in accordance with the determination by Congress that increased domestic production was needed for national security. We had even greater misgivings about a checkoff