In Colorado I sold a volume of $2,179,000 of drought feed. Up to last Thursday, March 28, there were 132 audits performed in Colorado. There were claims against 99 dealers in this ineligible category, total claims of $140,000.

If those dealers have to pay those claims it will have to come out of their pocket or they will have to try to collect it back from farmers. In October of 1956, the State ASC office started forcing payment of these claims by threatening to disqualify dealers in the current 1956 program. And some dealers paid up but this was soon discontinued at the request of some of our congressmen here.

We then engaged an attorney and came to Washington with myself, Mr. Farr and our attorney, and conferred with the Department of Agriculture, and attempted to straighten this out administratively; and we were not able to get any assurance that could be done.

They said that they were absolutely prohibited in their charter from making that type of claim. It would have to be done through legislation. And so that is why we are here.

We feel that we have a good record of complying with the requirements of this program as soon as there were understandable instructions.

Checks and audits of the 1955 and 1956 program still show only negligible errors; in fact, so small they finally quit auditing because they were not finding any problems.

It has been said before that the bill is to provide relief where the dealers delivered the feed even under these ineligible date categories. We certainly hope and trust that you can and will expedite the passage of this legislation.

Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you.

Now, is there anyone here in opposition to this bill?

We note no opposition to the bill. No one wants to testify.
Anyone here that wants to give any further testimony?

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Jack Lynn of the Farm Bureau called me on the telephone just before the hearing started and said they would have a statement.

Mr. POAGE. Without objection it will be included in the record. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, D. C., APRIL 4, 1957

Hon. W. R. POAGE,

Chairman, Livestock and Feed Grain Subcommittee,

House Agriculture Committee, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN POAGE: This is to express to you the American Farm Bureau Federation's policy with regard to several bills listed for consideration of your committee yesterday, for which time did not allow comment.

H. R. 2771. To amend the Soil Bank Act so as to include grazing land in the soil bank program.

We are opposed to this bill and other similar bills. Listed below are some of the important reasons:

(1) The provisions of this bill necessitate the establishment of cattle bases on every farm and ranch that participated in the program. This could easily lead to livestock quotas.

(2) It would be almost impossible to administer such a program. It would necessitate a tremendous amount of fencing and would require very strict policing if violations are to be avoided.

(3) This bill would not reduce cattle numbers to the extent indicated by the sponsors. If it did, then the effect would be to further depress livestock prices. We must seek to find solutions to the total surplus feed problem if we are to avoid continued increases in livestock numbers and the depressing effect on market prices that such numbers are bound to have.

(4) This bill would add between $30 million and $50 million to the authorization for appropriation under the soil-bank program. We are for reducing the appropriation for the soil bank from the current level of $1,250 million to $1,000 million for fiscal 1958.

H. R. 1270. To amend section 302 of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 so as to make such act inapplicable to stockyards which engage exclusively in the sale of livestock on commission at public auction. The Packers and Stockyards Act was one of the first major legislative actions supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation in its early history. It is our belief that it was the intent of Congress that the Packers and Stockyards Act should protect, insofar as practicable, livestock producers and feeders in the sale of their livestock generally, including livestock sold at auction markets. Exemption of auction markets from supervision under the Packers and Stockyards Act in our judgment is not in the best interest of livestock producers and feeders. Moreover, such exemption would be discriminatory as auction markets and terminal markets are now under supervision pursuant to that act.

Since the act was written, the relative volume of livestock marketings handled through auction markets has increased, which would indicate that it is more necessary now than it was originally to have such activities supervised under the provisions of the act.

The language of H. R. 1270 is such that there would not be anything to prevent terminal markets from shifting their operations to an auction-type market and thereby become exempted from the provisions of the act. This would hasten the complete destruction of the intent and purpose of the act.

Accordingly, we respectfully urge that no action be taken with respect to amending the Packers and Stockyards Act as proposed in H. R. 1270.

H. R. 5857. To amend the Soil Bank Act to permit grazing land to be included in the conservation reserve program.

H. R. 2860. To establish a national grazing reserve by providing assistance to livestock producers who carry out certain range conserving practices on privately owned grazing lands or on grazing lands under jurisdiction of the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management.

The same general objections that have been outlined above with regard to H. R. 2771 would be applicable to these two proposals.

H. R. 2139. To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to require reasonable bonds from packers.

We support the provisions of this bill and feel that it would be in the best interest of the livestock producers.

H. R. 6433. To amend the Meat Inspection Act to require the inspection and grading by the Department of Agriculture of meat and meat food products purchased by the Armed Forces.

We support the principles embodied in H. R. 6433.

We would appreciate the inclusion of this letter in the record of the hearings having to do with these bills.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN C. LYNN, Legislative Director.

Mr. POAGE. I recognize Congressman Chenoweth of Colorado.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. EDGAR CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 13TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. CHENOWETH. I am sure that nothing further is needed from me, Mr. Chairman, because Mr. Hill, my colleague, from Colorado is on this committee and is very familiar with the situation.

I introduced a bill which I hope will receive favorable consideration of this committee.

I also introduced a companion, H. R. 3606. I understand several other bills have been introduced.

I feel very strongly that this legislation is necessary in order to avert a great hardship and, I think, a great injustice on many of our grain dealers and feed dealers in Colorado.

I expect the same situation is true in other States.

I have several small feed dealers in my district, two in my hometown, Trinidad, Colo., who called my attention to this situation. And I feel that the errors which have been made were caused, by in many cases by lack of knowledge of the program, failure to give the dealers full instructions and to advise them of the regulations and the restrictions which would be imposed upon them.

Several years after the program is over they find themselves confronted with claims ranging from a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars, which in some cases would be absolutely impossible for the dealers to pay without maybe forcing them out of business.

So I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will give this bill your favorable consideration and that it will be reported to the House and I hope we can pass it because I feel that it is needed in order to prevent this injustice being done these dealers.

And I think it is only right that these claims should be waived.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here. And I want to thank you for holding these hearings.

Mr. POAGE. We appreciate your coming here. We are always glad to have you appear before the committee.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I appreciate it. It is legislation which I am very much interested in. I hope that it will receive favorable consideration of the committee.

Thank you.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chenoweth and I represent districts quite similar in regard to the way this legislation would react. This is a fact, if the feed dealers find out that this early delivery or later delivery is ruled out, then he could go back to the farmer for payment.

What is in my mind is that the elevator or feed dealer would have no way except to collect from the farmer because the farmer got the feed.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I never explored that angle of it.

Mr. HILL. There is no question about it. The farmer got the feed. Mr. CHENOWETH. I suspected in many cases the farmers have either left the country, no longer available, and might not be able to respond to an appeal of that kind.

Mr. HILL. That was all emergency feed.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I am sure that in these cases the dealers were trying to do what they could do to help the farmers-trying to give the farmers the full advantage of the program which Congress set up for them.

And it was a case of an emergency program set up in a hurry. I feel that much of the reason today we have this bill before you is the failure to give adequate instructions, just what would be expected of the dealers.

It was through no fault of their own they find themselves confronted with these claims, which, as I say, run up to rather large amounts in some cases.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you.

If there are no further witnesses on this subject the committee will consider the bills in executive session.

Thank all of you for your attendance.

GRAZING BILLS

Mr. POAGE. We will now take up the grazing bills.

We have H. R. 2771, H. R. 3984, H. R. 5857.

Mr. ALBERT. We have another bill on grazing.

What is the number of that?

Mr. POAGE. We will consider any bills relating to this subject.

I think our colleague, Congressman Albert, would like to make a statement on this matter.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, we will have an opportunity now to consider these bills. I have heretofore introduced a bill, H. R. 2771, to include grazing land in the soil-bank program. I think my colleagues, Mr. Jennings and Mr. Johnson have introduced similar bills on the same subject.

More recently, Mr. Chairman, I have introduced two bills to express and to get before the committee the point of view of the Oklahome Cattlemen's Association. One of the bills is not here. One is H. R. 5857, which deals with the soil bank on grazing land. And Mrs. Downey, do you have the other bill there?

Mrs. Downey (the clerk). I will get it for you.

Mr. ALBERT. The other bill deals with the program relating to the purchase of beef.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the President of the Oklahoma Farmers Union is here, to testify on this legislation, as is our former colleague, Mr. Phil Ferguson, of Oklahoma, who will express the point of view of the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association.

I appreciate this opportunity for these people from Oklahoma to appear before us.

Mr. POAGE. Who would you like to have first?

Mr. ALBERT. We will take you first then, Mr. Baker, and then Mr. Ferguson.

Mr. JOHNSON. The legislation that I have introduced is more in line with the idea of taking grazing land out of the dairy land. I find many of my farmers up in the dairy country would like to come under the soil bank. They do not come under it now.

Mr. Baker is here in behalf of my legislation and also a witness from the National Milk Producers Association.

Mr. POAGE. We will be glad to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. BAKER, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION Mr. BAKER. I am John A. Baker, coordinator of legislative sources. Congressman Albert has already introduced our main witness this morning, the president of the Oklahoma Farmers Union, and a member of the executive committee of the National Farmers Union, Mr. George Stone, who will make a brief statement at this time, and I will supplement it.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE STONE, PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA FARMERS UNION, MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

Mr. STONE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is indeed a privilege to get to state a few facts, as I believe that the farmers and cattlemen of Oklahoma are vitally interested in anything pertaining to this legislation.

I appreciate the bills being introduced, as well as some in the past, that demonstrated the thinking of many of our Congressmen from States such as ours.

Oklahoma is composed of diversified farmers. And certainly the State I represent has in years gone by, as Congressman Albert knows, turned more and more to the cattle business.

We believe today that the cattleman should have the same type of program or equal rights as compared to other farmers, small grain growers, or whatever the case might be.

It seems today that we have more and more men going into the cattle business than for many years previous. If this legislation is passed, it would permit the pasture and grazing land to be put into the soil bank. It would give them the advantages that they need today, in order for them to carry on, on the same basis that these other farmers carry on, as I mentioned.

It has been discussed over and over again as to the method of how this would work. It seems that the only fair way would be to pay the cattleman for each head that he took out of production, instead of by the acre.

The reasoning behind this is it is easier to determine the amount of cattle that can be run on various acres and various types of land, maybe in arriving at a certain dollars and cents figure on the part of land that might be taken out of production.

So actually, our people in Oklahoma feel and have felt for some time that they ought to be given some consideration in the cattle industry whereby they can cut down on production and take by a percent or by head some of their herds out of production and be paid for it by the per animal basis.

There is the danger that in the time ahead if we keep building up reserve land by the acreage and conservation reserve practices, in building up good grassland over a period of 5 to 15 years, at the end of that time these men that have taken out grain and other crops from production, if they put that then into the cattle production which evidence would indicate they are thinking about, then that would create a problem that maybe we haven't seen before.

And the tendency would be unless the grazing land would be in the bank also, at the end of a period of years we would build up a far more productive herd of cattle than we have today.

That is our reasoning behind it. That it is important to let the cattleman take advantage of the soil bank on the per head basis, giving him the equal opportunity with the grain and cotton producers and the others that are now participating in it.

That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. I again want to thank you for the consideration you have given us in the past and I am