So I think it is important that that point is underscored in your statement.

I am going to defer any further questions because of the shortness of time, but I do want to commend you on your statement. Senator Bellmon.

Senator BELLMON. Mr. Chairman, just one brief question.

Mr. Zimmerman, on page 3 of your statement, you say that "We have recommended that priority be given to the use of REAP funds for long-term, enduring practices."

I received a letter from the county executive director of ASCS in my own county and I would like to read the practices in our county under REAP:

"Sprigging bermuda, vegetative cover, farm ponds, broadbase terraces, diversion terraces, animal waste storage, water control structures, waterways, gullies, limestone, gypsum, and aerial spraying." Which of these do you think are not long-term practices?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I would not say any of them are not long-term practices.

Senator BELLMON. That is the conclusion I came to. The Secretary said a third of the money went for nonenduring practices. But I swear, I can't see any of these are anything but enduring practices.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. And that happens throughout the Great Plains section of our country, I believe better than 90 percent or more of the REAP payments go for what in some districts we would regard as enduring practices.

Senator BELLMON. Would you feel we could perhaps justify limiting REAP to these long-term enduring practices?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. It is terribly hard to make a generality of this, because what is terribly important in western Massachusetts may be different than what is important in western Oklahoma, and so on. We have subscribed from the beginning of the modern conservation program to an axiom of Hugh Bennett, the father of the Soil Conservation Service, to the effect that we should treat each acre according to its individual needs and use each acre according to its scientifically determined capabilities. And there is great difference around the country in the circumstances of conservation on each and every acre. We get into a trap, I think, when we try to generalize on the conservation needs or the resources requirements of the whole Nation, because they do vary so widely.

Senator BELLMON. I think, though, it is reasonable to say a practice which is enduring in Massachusetts would also be enduring in Oklahoma.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Let me give an example. Soils of western Massachusetts are highly acid and if we are going to put in terracing systems or diversion structures there, we need to get, as quickly as possible, and as permanently as possible, a vegetative cover on the waterways and terrace crowns. And that would be a permanent system. But about the only way we can get it and get it rapidly is with generous use of lime and fertilizer. The same is true with grassed waterways.

Now, I would say this: I don't believe that this application must be made annually; periodically perhaps, depending upon the soil. And we encourage that. We found ourselves in the early days of the Dust

91-868 O-73-9

Bowl working at cross purposes with the ACP. Our scientific determinations indicated-Senator McGovern would have rememberedand I expect you do, Senator Bellmon, there was a strong effort to get some of the land out of wheat and back in grass. We found ourselves in competition with payments being made under the triple A in those days for terracing, that had the net effect of maintaining that land in wheat.

Happily, that kind of problem is just about all gone. We have very little of that kind of problem any longer.

Senator BELLMON. Only one other question. You mentioned the importance of REAP to American agriculture. I think the point we have to continually make is that REAP is important primarily to the consumer in the city. If we let our soil wash down the creek, and lose our ability to produce food in abundance, it is not the farmer who is going to feel it, it is the city person.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I certainly endorse that. I tried to make that point and I would say it is important, not only to the consumers and important to the future, it is important to agriculture because these property owners are in truth the first custodians. They are now the stewards and for their lifetime it is their first responsibility.

Senator BELLMON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that this copy of the letter from David R. Huff, county executive director of ASCS, be made a part of the record. It is on the practices in effect and I believe you will find all are permanent practices. Senator HUDDLESTON (chairing). Let it be inserted.

(The letter follows:)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE,

Hon. HENRY BELLMON,
Senate Building,

Washington, D.C.

Perry, Okla., January 11, 1973.

DEAR SENATOR: In 1972 $71,333.70 of REAP cost-sharing was approved and completed in Noble County, Oklahoma. These funds helped solve particular conservation and environmental problems on 229 farms. This represents about 15 percent of the farms in the county. These practices were used:

In addition to sharing the cost of conservation practices, the county REAP helped to provide necessary technical services by transferring $3,705.00 to the Soil Conservation Service.

In 1972, the County Committee's REAP Investment Plan increased the expenditure of REAP funds earned on enduring practices by 19.5 percent. In

1972, 91.4 percent of the REAP Expenditures was on enduring practices compared to 71.9 percent in 1971. Enduring practices in Noble County includes, sprigging bermuda, terraces, ponds, waterways, gully shaping, and pollution practices.

Yours very truly,

DAVID R. HUFF, County Executive Director.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Do you know a community source of assistance that might be available to the farmers for this particular type of project?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I know of none.

Senator HUDDLESTON. I believe that is all the questions I have. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming.

The next witness is Mr. Thomas E. Kennedy, president, On The Farm Grain Storage Association, Newman Grove. Nebr.

Senator CURTIS. Mr. Kennedy is well regarded, and a very active senator in the Legislature of Nebraska. He is a frequent visitor to Washington with his recommendations. I know that his statement will be very worthwhile, and I am happy that he is here. I commend him highly to the committee.

Senator TALMADGE. I happen to know Senator Kennedy, and I have the same affection and admiration for him, too.

Senator CURTIS. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT, ON THE FARM GRAIN STORAGE ASSOCIATION, NEWMAN GROVE, NEBR.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman and Senate members of the Agriculture Committee. I am a farmer, and I had hoped you could question me in detail in any manner, because I spent my entire life farming. I am here, I guess, to represent my son because I am past the time of farming. I don't know whether we should go through the statement I have.

Senator HUDDLESTON. In the interest of time we would be glad to make the prepared statement a part of the record. I am sure that we would like to talk to a farmer a bit.

Mr. KENNEDY. In my testimony, I tried to stay away from persons ahead of me as much as possible, to get into something that was a little bit different. I can speak on the same subject as the others did, but I would like to give you the privilege of questioning me, maybe, rather than me making the statement.

Senator HUDDLESTON. We would be glad to proceed on that basis. Mr. KENNEDY. I don't know whether we should go through this subject. I think it is of utmost importance, particularly to the consumer. First of all, I would like to make this quote:

If farmers suddenly stopped producing food, it would take only seven days for all the food in all the supermarkets to be depleted. In five more days; people would begin stealing food. In six days, people would kill for food, and in seven days, we would begin to eat each other. That's 14 days between us and cannibalism, and only the farmers are keeping us from it.

And I am proud to be a farmer.

I am speaking as president of the On The Farm Grain Storage Association, consisting of members from many States-a purely volunteer organization. I want to say that I am a livestock and grain farmer, and have farmed for 40 years.

I have been interested in the ever normal granary concept since the dry years in the thirties. I did personally buy corn and wheat shipped from Argentina in 1936 for my livestock at a cost of $1.10 a bushel with the Government participating in the shipping. Now, that is approximately what the cost of corn is in my town today.

With the good crops that we had in 1932, and in 1933, corn went as low as 12 cents a bushel, yet in my area we did not produce a good crop from 1933 until 1939. If we would have had some way to hold some grain in farm storage, we would not have had to ship grain from Argentina.

I feel that food should be No. 1 in everyone's mind, and the strategic stockpile of feed grain would assure the consumer of good food at a reasonable cost. This holding of the feed grains on the farm saves many more dollars to the taxpayer and consumer than the small cost of storage. The assurance in case of drought, corn blight, war, or any other disaster to have the grain available for feed in a scattered area ready for shipment or use should be the first concern.

Good planning for any business should be No. 1, and to have our feed supply planned at a small total cost so that we will not be in the same condition that Russia and India are now in-this should be essential to all consumers. Let's not overproduce or underproduce, but use good planning so that the average farmer can make a good living and keep the wholesale cost of food at a reasonable cost to the

consumer.

I am not sure what amount of feed grain should be in the strategic stockpile on the farm, but the amount talked about many times is about 40 million tons, or perhaps one-third of 1 year's production. If a reasonable amount would be held, as we have tried many times to say, not calling 2 years', 3 years', or 4 years' storage at one time, as has just been done in the past few weeks, completely upsetting the market transportation and collapsing the grain market in many areas.

If we would rotate and keep a fresh stock of grain in storage on the farm so farmers knew what the future would be, and not have the market upset without any notice, and use the good planning that is necessary to survive in any business, it would sure help in getting good food at a better cost for the consumer.

The farmer can store the feed grain on the farm without too much handling of the grain, and he does know his produce, and how to store it, better than anyone else. Without too much handling, it does not receive the damage, also the transportation cost, and it is in a scattered area near where it should be fed. If you have an emergency, it can be shipped at once from the farm without upsetting all transportation.

Storing the grain on the farm gives a chance to market the grain throughout the entire year, helping the boxcar shortage and keeping a normal flow of grain on the market.

In the past, the farmer has stored the grain the first year free, and then been paid for the storage after the first year. I am sure only a farmer would store this grain without any charge for a year. If the Government really wants to see that the consumer gets the best food at the least cost, a control of planting of feed grains can be set with a strategic stockpile of feed grain to give this backup support, without

guessing and breaking many young farmers that really need a normal cost and profit, as most businessmen do.

I do feel the facility loan program in the past has given the producer of feed grain a chance to get a good balance of financing from bankers for day-to-day operation, loan, and insurance companies for the land financing, and the Government to supply the financing for storage building, drying, and handling equipment.

It is difficult to get long term loans on this type of building from other loan suppliers. And I might say, the interest amount doesn't make so much difference, just so the Government gets their interest back that they pay for. These loans have proven that they are paid back in full with interest, and should be continued, because this is not new money, but the same money used over and over. Also, the loans should be made for dry grain or wet grain, giving the choice to the person who is getting the loan and paying it off plus interest.

For wet storage, some farmers can get a cheaper gain on livestock, again helping the consumer-also saving on fuel for drying, and the expense of extra handling. Some farmers store wet grain for early harvest and feeding, and also dry grain for shipping or marketing at a later date. Wet grain, as well as dry grain, is now being sold by elevators, and is in strong demand.

The cutting down of the facility loan from a 2-year productivity to 1 year will almost make it impossible to qualify. Then, to cut out entirely the wet grain structures is ridiculous and does not really discriminate.

I hope that you will try to put back into service the facility loan program at a 2-year qualification standard and a total loan figure for a year at $130 million, or between that figure and the amount used in the past year. This is not new money but the same money being used over and over, and the borrower is willing to pay the fair interest.

I would also hope that you would see that the farm storage program would be reinstated with a reasonable stockpile of feed grains that would give all Americans an opportunity to have good food supply at a normal cost, and the farmers a chance to make a good living-with planning in advance, not trying to outguess nature and the world problems.

We do now have a near-catastrophe with much of our 1972 crop, to get it harvested and dried, and no fuel available; then the Government ordering all CCC grain sold at once from their own bins; also orders to elevators to buy or ship all CCC-stored grain.

Our local elevator just received an order Saturday, before I left, to deliver 88,000 bushels again. This is the third order they have had just recently. They have no way to ship it, no way to handle the grain we have, and this is an extremely tough position in our area.

Then ordering all farm grain-stored grain-to be bought back or delivered with a complete catastrophe in shipping and marketing. No grain was called last year, which was ridiculous. Then, to force the dumping of all grain on top of the 1972 crop, has really fired up farmers, elevators, transportation operators, bankers, because of the many hardships and financial losses. Please help immediately in this great distress.

I would offer my service in any way possible. Thank you for this opportunity.