1 Effective for less than full year.

2,098, 400 82,000

792, 534

27,758,000 {

$ 54, 505 3,500,000 • 103, 029

13, 000, 000 270,000

28, 550, 534

149, 289, 585

-11,050, 269

43, 100, 000 150,607, 348

Based on no Sec. 4 assistance for any school lunch program or no assistance-reimbursement furnished to the paying child, family of 4 income over $15,630 annually.

CHART B

ILLINOIS MEAL SUMMARY-SCHOOL YEAR 1979-80, JULY 1 TO JUNE 30

[Grouped in 10 percent brackets by percentage of free or reduced price meals to total meals served]

1 Our data system does not break out separate figure for free and reduced price meals; therefore, these figures were computed based on prior year percentage of 8 percent reduced and 92 percent free.

2 Based on Public Law 96-499, where the reimbursement rate for free and reduced price meals was not reduced in schools serving 60 percent or more of all meals as free or reduced, 88 percent of all meals served in the schools in this group are free or reduced price meals. Of the total meals served during the 1979-80 school year in Illinois, 45.6 percent of all meals served were free or reduced price. Further, 71.6 percent of all free and reduced price meals served were not affected by the rate reduction for the balance of fiscal year 1981 (Public Law 96-499).

STATEMENT OF CHAMPAIGN COUNTY LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS

The nation's 22 million poor people who depend on food stamps will face reductions in their monthly coupon allotments as a result of the Administration's proposed $1.8 billion in food stamp cuts for fiscal year 1982. Many of the cuts are ones that have been proposed in previous food stamp battles but were always successfully removed from legislation.

The League of Women Voters supports full funding for the food stamp program. We believe the federal government bears a major responsibility for providing income assistance, i.e., food stamps, for all persons who are unable to work, whose earnings are inadequate, or for whom jobs are not available. We oppose all budget cuts that reduce food stamp benefits to those most in need.

Specifically, we oppose reducing food stamp benefits for families whose children get free school lunches because at the current allotment of 44 cents per meal per person, food stamps are only a diet supplement and certainly cannot be seen as providing recipients with three nutritious meals a day. Also, we oppose retrospective accounting procedures because the League believes that benefits should be based on current needs. The new provision would also add a heavy burden to program administrators.

National economic recovery must not be attempted through means that might threaten the very lives of the poor.

MISSISSIPPI HEARING

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN C. STENNIS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

I thank you for the opportunity to present this statement at this hearing today. Your chairmanship of this hearing is indicative of your fine work on the Senate Agriculture Committee. I have certainly enjoyed serving with you on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, as you have chaired that committee in such an able way. I look forward to the many decisions we will make together to benefit not only the great State of Mississippi, but the entire nation.

This hearing today is a fine thing for this State. Mississippi is one of the national leaders in agriculture, as in other areas. In the past few weeks there have been many Mississippians testifying before committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. These Mississippi farmers have testified as experts

in their particular agricultural area. This exemplifies the great respect given to all farmers in our state, from the smallest landowner to my good friend, Čommissioner Jim Buck Ross.

I am looking forward to the fine testimony to be presented by these witnesses today. Certainly, their comments will be very beneficial to the Agriculture Committee and the Senate as we make decisions this year.

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today in Columbus, and I thank these witnesses for taking time from their busy schedules to help those of us in Washington make more responsible decisions for this nation.

STATEMENT OF JIM BUCK Ross, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

I am honored and delighted to appear before this panel and with the other witnesses who are here. My opening comment is to congratulate you, Senator Cochran, on your foresight. I think it is worthwhile to allow those of us at the cross-roads to have some imput relative to this important legislation you have proposed.

It is my understanding that Congress is reluctant to bring up major farm legislation during an election year, which next year will be. Therefore, I trust your bill will be considered favorable before the old farm law expires.

I should like to place into the proceedings a statement on catfish farming, one of the fastest growing agricultural enterprises in Mississippi, and which I see is not touched on in proposed legislation for congressional consideration.

It is my hope that whatever comes out of the proposed farm program will be a move to getting agriculture back on market-oriented basis. A shift in the direction of getting government out of the farming business. In spite of better seed, more efficient machines and better yields the fact is that the world is slowly moving toward a more delicate food situation, massive and nationwide crop failures, inflation, increasing birth rates, people living longer increasing consumption, all bother me. The gap between agricultural production of foreign nations and their food needs is growing at rate of 4-million tons per year.

We're dealing with many problems today. Agriculture is making great advances, yet inflation concerns all of us.

Farm income was down about 25 percent in 1980 from 1979 for a national estimate of $23-25 billion, current USDA estimates project_ a 1981 farm income of about $28-$32 billion, that will be below the 1979 level. Production costs will increase about 10-12 percent for all of agriculture this year. You must consider that estimated national farm income is relative and some of the crops we in Mississippi depend on and produce, may not increase at the national average or level. But, the projected 10-12 percent increase in production costs

is evident.

I must stress that it is important to understand that rising production costs continue to cut into farmers' profit and to undermine their, and the Nation's economic well being. Such conditions, of course, will in the long run effect consumers. Therefore, I remind you, that Americans' are paying a smaller percentage of their income for food today than we did in 1950, and today far less than most of the rest of the world. As has been said, the basic farm legislation now on the books will expire at the end of this year. The American public and agriculture community in general demand stability. We should look at the commodity loan and reserve programs, including reserve release and call price levels, since these programs are designed to help farmers hold grain until the market prices reaches a fair level. This legislation must not in any way lead to further increases in rising production costs.

Agriculture continues, thanks to the strong will and rugged spirit of American farmers, to be the star in a dismal picture of international trade balances.

Looking at the Nation's problems in somewhat of an overview position, I am convinced inflation must be brought under control, even to a position of negative growth is not enough, and interest rate increases must be brought under control. No longer can we afford the luxury of continued social programs with their builtin escalator costs. We must demand a change in directions. Tax payers are interested in getting more for their effort, with less taxation.

Recipients of handouts are going to have to accept some sacrifices along with the rest of us. In fact, if the socialistic-laborite trends are not eliminated. There will be no democracy as we know it. Congress, and the White House, no

matter who carries the ball or gets credit for the victory, must take a stand, bite the bullet, and again restore some incentives for those who have paid the freight for so long to fund the many liberal social experiments we have tolerated for about 40 years. Throwing money at some individual's personal problems is not going to give us anything but a further decaying morality and bankruptcy in government. As to the upcoming farm bill now before subcommittees of the house, it is my understanding that what progress has been made is in line with this administration's campaign promises and party obligations. To reduce regulatory environment directed toward free incentives, I feel that the proposed new farm legislation, along with every major congressional proposal, must be based on budgetary considerations, the problems and results of inflation, and a general theme of free enterprise.

Mississippi farmers, generally speaking, have enjoyed lean profit years since 1973, that is, with the exception of 1979. Some have sought to cash in their high investments. Others perhaps would if it were not for tight mortgages and liens. Still others are hanging in there, meeting the challenge, and as with all true land oriented farmers, working hard to do what they enjoy and feel is their destiny.

Yet, there is no getting away from the need to fine tune farm operations and struggle each day with the cost-return ratio.

I believe that the farm-owned grain reserve, as has been part of recent farm bills, has been good for farmers and consumers, and that a simplified program will be even better. I would encourage including a reserve entry price or special loan rate that encourages farmers to place grain into the reserve.

Target prices are direct, unrepayable outlays from the National Treasury and I would suggest they not be included in the 1981 bill, because loan programs, on the other hand, are obligations that must be repaid. I do support a modest feed grain support loan rate.

Great progress has been made in the technology of farming. Farm machinery on the market today feature computerized modules, tinted glass, air-condition cabs with radios, tape decks, foam cushions, hydrolic steering, and other sophisticateds.

All of this is a far cry from hand plows, and one-mule sweeps. Yet, despite great strides in productivity and manhours saved, and while each farmer produces enough for himself and 60 others, agriculture is plagued with inflation, energy costs, Government regulation, political interferences, and the same other weather problems which for generations have worked against farmers hoping for profit peaks.

I strongly urge, despite needs and pleas to balance the budget and increase Federal cutbacks, increased funding for research. This investment will yield profits in production, greater domestic supplies and increased goods for international sales. One last thought in this area, I would hope for increased effort to expand commercial exports.

The soring opportunities and daily challenges that this presents to American farmers must be considered with calm planning, personally, I am reluctant to openly support the target price concept for I am convinced that the free marketplace functions best without artificial support and burecratice hinderance. I support a strong Federal-State marketing improvement program and the FederalState market news program, I hope that the national participation will be increased. In the area of research, increased productivity means planned experimentation and research and this means proper funding. I understand the urgency of improving the technology base... in production, processing and marketing... so that we may meet the demands of world trade. This is very important, and without increased world trade, our balance of payments problem will grow.

It is almost a personal thing, but I take this opportunity to thank USDA for support of Foreign Agriculture Service, and suggest that USDA be allowed in the framework of this legislation to continue to fund agriculture's effort to promote use of American farm products overseas, turning now to the world feed situation, and the crops we're considering here at this time, are part of the world supply, I am informed that the 1980-81 food supply will be tighter than in the last several years. Worldwide, production was dismal due to weather conditions as a whole. Global food production last year was about the same as in 1979. Output in developing countries rose by about 4 percent, the increases in population precluded any per capita gains. As for the developed countries, food production fell by about 2 percent, and there was a per capita decline of 3 percent.

Our food is the most bountiful, the best, more healthful, safer, more nutritious, and the most reasonably priced in the world. A vital, expanding, strong farm

economy will assure consumers that it will stay that way in the future. I respectfully hope that the 1981 farm bill will promote even better production and a reasonable profit for farmers. Thank you for this opportunity to address this important subject. If it pleases, the chair, I will take questions.

TENNESSEE HEARING

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., April 17, 1981.

The PRESIDENT,
The White House,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The Soviet grain embargo has outlived its usefulness and should be lifted. As now imposed, the embargo impacts unfairly on a small segment of our society, American grain and soybean farmers.

It appears to me there are three primary reasons for lifting the embargo at this time. First, it has not been imposed across the board. Hundreds of items are still being sold to the Soviet Union as I discovered recently in a Department of Commerce document.

Second, tensions in Poland appear to have subsided substantially and the Soviet Union shows no signs of withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan despite our protests.

And, third, the 5 year United States/Soviet grain trade agreement expires this year and it will be difficult to negotiate a new one as long as the embargo is in place.

Mr. President, as the embargo continues we are placing an unfair burden on a few farmers and are getting little in return from the sacrifice. It is time to lift the embargo and get on with restoring some vitality to our agriculture economy. With kindest regards and best wishes, I am

Sincerely,

ED JONES, M.C., Seventh District of Tennessee.

PRESS RELEASE OF CONGRESSMAN ED JONES, APRIL 17, 1981 Congressman Ed Jones said Friday he was asking President Reagan to lift the Soviet grain embargo saying, "It has outlived its usefulness."

At a Congressional hearing in Memphis, Jones gave three primary reasons for lifting the embargo. First, it has not been imposed across-the-board. The Department of Commerce has issued a document detailing 719 items the United States sold the Russians in 1980 including machinery, high technology gear and consumer goods, and the sales are continuing.

Second, tensions in Poland appear to have subsided substantially and the Soviet Union shows no signs of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in spite of our protests.

And third, the 5 year U.S./Soviet grain agreement expires this year and it will be difficult to negotiate a new one as long as the embargo is in place.

Jones said he was particularly upset earlier when he saw the list of items still being exported to the Soviet Union such as, "motor vehicle parts, air conditioner parts, cigarettes, photo equipment, drilling equipment, books, cosmetic ingredients, dishwashers and many other things which will enhance the productivity and standard of living in the Soviet Union."

"Additionally, I plan to support an amendment to the Farm Bill to protect farmers if future embargoes are imposed," Jones said. "Hopefully, an amendment can be passed requiring that commodity loan rates be raised to a level equalling the average market price for that commodity for the 15 days preceding the embargo and for at least 90 days following the embargo. This would give minimum protection to farmers at little or no cost to the government."

Jones said, "The embargo made its symbolic statement. It expressed our strong objections to the invasion of Afghanistan. But is has outlived its usefulness and now its entire weight is on the shoulders of American farmers."