Mr. GOODNIGHT. But I have no label to use Monitor-4 on pepper. I am a licensed pesticide applicator. If I did use Monitor-4 on pepper my license could be lifted and I could not buy any more pesticides.

Senator STONE. Then wouldn't you suggest that imports ought to be prohibited, vegetables containing substances which you, either by reason of not having a label or any other reason, can't use?

Mr. GOODNIGHT. They should be required to meet the same standards as I.

Senator STONE. Well, I am trying to get specific. I don't

Mr. GOODNIGHT. Well, specifically, I feel that tolerances on DDT should be stricken from the record. We haven't used any DDT in this country in years. From my talks with the pesticide laboratory people, all of the DDT that was used in this country has broken down into other forms of chemicals, but we still have a seven parts per million tolerance on DDT on many vegetables. That should be stricken. There should be no tolerance for DDT.

Senator STONE. When you say stricken, either we are allowed to use it or, if we can't use it, we can't import it.

Mr. GOODNIGHT. Right.

Senator STONE. All right, now let's shift over from the pesticidesbecause that is what this March 22 hearing is going to elicit-we are going to get evidence on all these applications.

What about either labor standards or OSHA standards or any other standards that you feel make the imports an unfair competition to the domestically produced vegetable? Is there anything else?

Mr. GOODNIGHT. The average pay on my farm is around $3.25 per hour. The Mexican producer pays their labor $5 a day in American

money.

Labor comprises about 45 percent of my production cost. This puts me at a very tough situation to try to compete, but it is my beliefand we have an economist working on this now-that even with those variances, I can compete with the Mexican producer.

Senator STONE. Well, what makes it, then, other than the pesticide problem, unfair?

Mr. GOODNIGHT. The Mexican producers, they have two distinct and separate markets to sell their products in. This is a very volatile situation.

First, when they harvest a crop, they can sell it in the country in Mexico or they can ship it to the United States. What they are doing at the present time, they are taking the top-quality produce, they are shipping it into the United States; they keep the junk at home, stuff that we don't consume in this country and throw away, and feed it to their own population. They evidently have the ability to restrict supplies; at their choosing they will ship into this country-or withhold supplies from this country, depending, we believe, on how much production there is in Florida-when we are in full production, they will let the supplies come; when we are in short supplies, they will restrict supplies and make the market go up.

Senator STONE. Instead of the other way around.

Mr. GOODNIGHT. Yes; they started out several years ago with tomatoes; they took a January to February marketing season; they have expanded that from November to June now. From tomatoes, they

went to pepper, cucumbers, and other crops. They did exactly the same thing with it-they would take a January to February marketing season, and they have spread it out now. Last year, Mexican imports during the month of May on tomatoes ran around 150,000 thirtypound boxes per day. This is unheard of in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goodnight, I hate to call time on you, but we

have other witnesses to be heard.

Thank you for a very fine statement.

Senator STONE. Could I make just one comment, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator STONE. Wrapping up the Florida witnesses, we are going to have this March 22 hearing and several hearings to follow. We do have a problem with imports. All we care about is making the imports fair and competitive with what we are permitted to do ourselves.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you fully. I get the same complaint from our Georgia vegetable producers.

The next witness is Mr. Albert Wildes, Alma. Ga.

It is a pleasure to welcome to the committee a constituent and old friend, Mr. Wildes.

STATEMENT OF ALBERT WILDES, ALMA, GA.

Mr. WILDES. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the plight of the American family farmer. My name is Albert Wildes. I farm 300 acres in Bacon County, Ga., consisting of grain, livestock, and tobacco.

Gentlemen, I think it is tragic that the great provider of plenty called the American farmer has had to spend his time walking these hallowed halls lobbying for his livelihood.

I am asking not only for a fair return on my investment to feed and clothe myself and my family, but I am also petitioning this committee for immediate legislative action so that I can continue to feed the 56 other people who depend upon my labors for their existence.

The farmers in my county are in serious financial condition, many of them may not be able to farm in 1978. This is due partially to the severe drought we experienced in 1977, but a major portion of the problem is that we have not received a fair price for our production. When I came to Washington, D.C., for the first time and saw the dome of our Nation's Capitol shining in the night, I was reminded that this magnificent building is not here just for beauty, but that this is the place where the great lawmakers of our time and of time past have met to delegate the laws by which the American people are governed. I was also reminded that it was farmers who founded this great country, the greatest democracy ever conceived by man; it was farmers who crossed the Delaware with George Washington on Christmas Day 200 years ago; it was farmers who spent the winter at Valley Forge, and many of them lost their lives in the freezing snow, with nothing but mere shreds of clothing for protection; it was farmers who explored and tamed the great Northwest Territory. Farmers down through the ages have answered their country's call, not only in times of conflict, but in times of peace every year and every day. Farm

ers are responsible for providing the American people with the highest standard of living of any people on the face of the Earth.

The Georgia farmers were told at the Farm Bureau convention on Jekyll Island in November 1977 that farmers' problems could not be solved until inflation had been brought under control. We were urged to persevere with courage and fortitude, that hard times bring out the indomitable spirit embodied best by the American farmers. These words were echoed by President Carter a few weeks ago when he told the group of farmers to just wait, give the new farm bill time; that it would work.

Gentlemen, farmers have "persevered with courage and fortitude" for the last 100 years. My grandfather spent his entire life as a farmer. He also spent his entire life courageously waiting for things to get better. My father, too, was a farmer. He died in 1968, waiting his entire life for the farm situation to improve. I have been farming for 10 years, farming the same land that my father and his father before him farmed. I have seen no improvement in the economic status of the farmer. Farmers have persevered with courage and fortitude until we are almost out of business.

Most of the farmers in my county are small farmers, yet we have an average investment of approximately $350,000. The average farmer in Bacon County lost $30,000 to $40,000 due to the drought that plagued our fields this past summer. If we had been receiving the cost of production plus a reasonable profit on our investment for the past 10 years, we would not have needed the SBA to come down and bail us out with their disaster loan program; neither would we have needed the disastrous disaster payments from the ASCS office.

Tobacco is the only crop that saved the family farmer in my area in 1977. Now I understand the HEW is waging a $23-million antismoking campaign. I think this is discrimination in the first degree. I think it invades the rights and lives of the American people to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to use tobacco products.

We hear talk of destroying the tobacco farmer by removing the price support on tobacco. I think the critics of the tobacco program have not stopped long enough from their daily routine of trying to destroy the family farmer to realize that this is one program that has never cost the Federal Government, 14 cents out of the tobacco user's dollar goes for Federal excise tax; 22 cents goes for State and local excise tax. In 1950, 16 cents of the tobacco user's dollar went to the farmer, in 1976 he received only 8 cents.

There is no way the tobacco farmer can stay in business without a strong support program. I urge this committee to put forth a united and concerted effort and speak out against those who want to take away this important industry that pumps some $15 billion into this country's economic bloodstream.

As a grain and livestock farmer, we are faced not only with rising production costs but also with no realistic price support program.

The USDA continues to report a surplus of grain. If we have too much grain, I support action for mandatory cutbacks in acreage. I fail to understand, though, how we could build such a surplus in the year 1977. If the buildup began prior to 1977, why were steps not taken to eliminate this?

I do not believe supply and demand determines the price the farmer receives for his grain and livestock. He has become the victim of speculative trading. As speculators buy and sell his grain on paper, they put the price exactly where they want it.

Another problem I think causing the family farmer to become extinct is the USDA reporting service. I saw the disastrous results of their reporting this past fall when soybeans fell from $9.50 per bushel in the summer of $4.50 just before harvest.

All of the information I could gather led us to believe we would run out of soybeans before harvest. But before the combines even began to roll through the fields, the price had dropped $5 per bushel. Where did we get all the beans to flood the market before harvest?

In 1973 cattle prices had reached an all-time high. The boycotting housewives were told that meat was in short supply, that there were not enough cows down on the farm-and all of a sudden, before a cow could even be bred and drop a calf, cattle prices fell to the bottomand they have been there for 4 years. I cannot understand where the cows came from so quickly. I think the USDA reporting service either lied or goofed, and thousands of farmers and ranchers have faced bankruptcy because of it.

Even if supply and demand completely governed our price it makes no sense to export our products at a price below the cost of production. We control 50 percent of the world's supply of food. Let's put a price on it of a minimum of 100 percent parity at the farm level. This would not cause us to be priced off the world market, as some critics would have you believe. We were not priced off the world market earlier in this decade when for a short time our products were selling for a decent price; we were embargoed off the world market by our Government, not priced off it. The Arab countries have a large supply of oil, but evidently they are not selling it cheap, because every time I go to the gas pump the price has gone up.

In view of the facts given before this committee, I strongly urge that you take immediate action toward obtaining 100 percent parity at the producer level.

There is a story told up in the Dakota country of a small child who became lost in the acres and acres of golden grain as it was ready for harvest. All of the neighbors came in to search for the lost child. They continued their search on into the night as the temperature dropped below zero. After searching for some 3 days, someone suggested "Why don't we join hands and literally comb these wheat fields?" This was done and in less than 2 hours the child was found. As the search party approached the house, the mother of the lifeless child came running down the lane to meet them and through her tears she cried and sobbed over and over again "If only you had joined hands sooner."

Unless immediate action is taken, the members of this committee, as well as the American people, will cry this same plea when the family farmers are driven from the farm.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wildes, I congratulate you on an eloquent statement. As you know, we have a tremendous carryover of 5.8 million bales of cotton, 1.2 million bushels of corn and feed grains, 1.1 billion bushels of wheat. If the farmers plant anything like their

planting intentions this year, they are going to add to the surpluses which will depress the market price.

Mr. WILDES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Those commodities will continue to sell at the loan level which, as you know, as a grain farmer, is below the cost of production.

I suggested a five-point program on January 24 to Secretary Bergland that he could implement immediately under the 1977 act; it would immediately pump about $8.5 billion in the hands of the farmers. Now we have a legislative crisis to try to pass any omnibus farm bill; it would probably be laying by time before it could get to the White House. Time is of the essence and we need to take some action immediately to try to eliminate these huge surpluses. I have recommended that we pay farmers to set aside up to 50 million acres of land to get rid of these surpluses.

Would you support that?

Mr. WILDES. Yes, sir, like I said, if we have got a surplus, then we need to let some land lay out.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you. That's the only way we can get supply in line with demand. Now, here's the problem legislatively. We have these Panama Canal treaties pending before the Senate probably take another 2 or 3 weeks or more. Then the leadership has announced, following that, we are going to take up this labor reform bill.

Senator DOLE. They may change that now.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope they will. But if they do that that will take another 2 or 3 weeks. Every farmer who is going to plant anything in Bacon County would have already planted by that time, which is too late. I am going to try to get the committee to report to the Senate at the first executive session a land retirement program that the farmers will be compensated for getting production in line with demand, and hopefully if we can move that to the House in a hurry maybe they could take action prior to planting time all over the United States.

We have 18 members on this committee, and the gamut of thinking on the committee runs in every direction. It will take several weeks probably to mark up a bill to deal with everything that has been recommended by the various witnesses here. Then they would have to hold hearings on the House side, after the Senate acted; and then it would be laying by time before we could get a bill to the President. I hope we can get a land retirement bill reported and speedily enacted into law and bring supply in line with demand. If we do that I think you will see these various commodities start rising instead of continuing to decline.

Mr. WILDES. Let me ask you this, sir. What's your thinking behind paying for the land that's let out?

The CHAIRMAN. My thinking is let the farmers bid, and I anticipate it would be an average price of about $75 per acre in a 1-year one-shot deal to try to get rid of these surpluses is what I am thinking about at the present time.

Mr. WILDES. Don't you think that by paying them to leave the land out that it will be even harder to get that bill through the House or the Senate?