Mr. BELL. About $3 an acre.

The CHAIRMAN. That is $16.

Mr. BELL. You wouldn't have to do that every year.

The CHAIRMAN. We have to do that until we get out of the woods. We want land out of cultivation and you are talking about your fertility bank and that is the purpose of it. The fertility bank as I understand it and as explained by many farmers is to set that aside, to reduce your plant, and thereby reduce your surpluses.

Now when you get your surpluses out of the way then you can call on that few acres and every year you may take just so many until you get production in line with consumption. That is the theory. Whether it will work that way I don't know.

Mr. BELL. What I am trying to get across is, that seed and plowing wouldn't have to be done every year.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that.

Mr. BELL. That part wouldn't come in every year. It would be $5. and after you got that in. The crimson clover reseeds itself and would still be there.

The CHAIRMAN. The first year it would cost about $16.

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. The following years about $5 an acre is what I consider to be reasonable in my case. That is the way I feel about it, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, suppose your plan were put through at $16 an acre, if all farmers were the same-that is, it would cost the same throughout the Nation-that would cost, we would have to appropriate for that $640 million, assuming that we put only 10 percent of your land out. That is cheap.

Mr. BELL. That is what I thought.

The CHAIRMAN. I am just saying now the next thing for us to do. and the committee here can vote on it, but that depends on anothercommittee providing the money for this, don't you see? You can see the complications that face us on this committee in trying to get the whole thing worked out. Of course if we could go to Congress and just say that any bill we draft will cost, let's say, so many hundreds of millions of dollars and they give us that, we could put a program through quickly, but the thing is when we devise a program which we think will work and then we have to implement it by getting another committee to provide the money, it may be that we get into a little difficulty. I just thought I would suggest that to you and others as indicative of how difficult it is sometimes to solve the problem. Senator JOHNSTON. Would you pay the same on all commodities, $16? On all acres, no difference for the commodity you were settingaside, whether it be wheat, oats, corn, or tobacco?

Mr. BELL. I don't know the conditions in tobacco, that is below here. I don't know it. But up there you take, I have farms and I am allotted I believe it is 17 acres of wheat. Yet we operate it all under one head, my son and I, it is joint farm affair. If we had those in separate farms my understanding is they would give everybody 15 acres of wheat, as much as 15 acres of wheat for each farm.

Senator JOHNSTON. The reason I ask that question is that some commodities that cost much more to produce and you should make more profit out of that; some of it is easier made and you don't make such a great profit out of it. Should you pay the same on those acres?

64440-56-pt. 6-10

Mr. BELL. I base mine on just what, if a person in my section wants to rent a few acres he usually gets about $5 an acre regardless of what the land is planted in.

Senator JOHNSTON. You did not include fertilizer.

Mr. BELL. I would include fertilizer if they required it.

Senator JOHNSTON. Wouldn't you almost have to put some in this, State?

Mr. BELL. You would have to lime it and possibly put potash on. This crimson clover is a legume and furnishes its own nitrogen. I would include whatever fertilizer you would have to put in addition to that.

The CHAIRMAN. May we go a step further with this fertility bank you speak of. Other plans have been suggested and the question arises as to what we ought to do with diverted acres. That is, acres that you take out of cotton, what you should plant on those acres. Have you any views to express on that?

Mr. BELL. If I understand it, that is what we call the acreage you take out is going to be put in the soil building stuff and allowed to stand there and not use it.

The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned planting of wheat. Would you want to plant wheat?

Mr. BELL. No, sir. I want to bring this

The CHAIRMAN. I don't mean on these acres now that you divert, but would you want a provision whereby you could plant wheat on any of your land?

Mr. BELL. Senator, they give us 17 acres.

The CHAIRMAN. I know, but you know the people from Kansas and the people from North and South Dakota who plant wheat out there don't like that because they say, and justly so, that it is not fair, and the same thing in Louisiana. We plant a lot of rice, we go into Jeff Davis Parish and say to the farmer, just a minute, you planted 500 acres of rice last year, we are going to cut off a hundred acres because we think that 500 is to much. What happens?

This hundred acres that we take off of the Louisiana fellow we give to the Mississippi fellow who takes lands on which he planted cotton and he gets out of cotton but gets into rice. Do you think that is right for the Louisiana farmer or do you think it is right for the South Carolina farmer to plant wheat when you tell the wheat grower in the Dakotas or in Minnesota that he has to curtail his acres? Mr. BELL. May I answer that in this way

The CHAIRMAN. Answer it any way you want because I will tell you, the solution, of that problem, you understand, may depend on whether or not we get a bill. It is that serious.

Mr. BELL. In my case I never sell any wheat that is produced on my farm.

The CHAIRMAN. I didn't get that.

Mr. BELL. I never sell wheat produced on my farm. It is for home consumption for the labor on the farm.

The CHAIRMAN. In doing that you deprive the Kansas grower of the sale of flour there and you might sell it to feed to a few pigs. You might feed it to a few chickens, you might feed it to livestock that will hurt the Iowa corn grower who cut out his corn under these support programs and grows less pigs.

If you at the same time are permitted to grow crops that conflict with the corn grower in Iowa, you can readily see where the fellow from Iowa may say to me, now wait a minute, we won't permit you to use these diverted acres to plant wheat or corn. You get out of peanuts, we don't want you to put anything on that land on which you grew peanuts to put anything that conflicts with us.

And that, I repeat, a solution of that problem alone may depend on whether or not we get a bill. That is one we are going to have to solve and I would just like to get your views on it.

In fact, that applies to all witnesses here.

That is

Mr. BELL. I still think every farm should be self-supporting. I take that view. I don't mean to go out and sell it or make a commodity out of it but every farm should be self-supporting. my opinion of what a farm should be. I can be all wrong about it. The CHAIRMAN. You are not but I would like to get your views. How many do that the way you do? I met one in Arkansas or in Louisiana who testified that he planted wheat to sell and he sold it. Do you know how many bushels he made per acre? Fifty-seven. Do you know what the average production is in Kansas? Sixteen. What do you think Senator Young, who was on that committee who comes from that area, Senator Schoeppel who comes from that area, what did they think of it?

Mr. BELL. They didn't think much of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course not. I pose those questions to you and all those present to indicate the problems we are going to have to wrestle with before we get a bill out. It is not as easy as people think it is to come here and say I would like to have this or that. There are so many farmers affected by what you do for South Carolina or Louisiana or Texas in contrast to the effect it is going to have on people from the Dakotas and from Minnesota and from way up in Öregon. You know those States have two Senators, too.

Mr. BELL. I know it is a problem.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad you realize it.
Mr. BELL. That completes my statement.
The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Is Mr. Hawkins here?

I understand he has a few words. Come up, Mr. Hawkins. Give your name in full, please, and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF G. E. HAWKINS, GREENWOOD, S. C.

Mr. HAWKINS. I am G. E. Hawkins, dairy farmer from Greenwood County.

Gentlemen, I would like to state at the outset that I am basically opposed to all handouts in any form, any kind of parity payments or anything else, but let me tell you right now I am not hiding my head in the sand because I know in a controlled economy one segment cannot operate free enterprise if the other part of the economy is controlled.

I have served on every Government committee that has been formed in Greenwood County at one time or another. I was on the old Triple A committee for 10 years, and I helped administer that to the best of my ability. I know it is necessary that our agricultural

economy be supported, because all other segments of the economy are supported. And the parity program as set up for agriculture I think is very important. I think that one of the things that has hurt the farm parity program is the uncertainty of parity. I bet you could ask every man in this room what is the basis of figuring parity today and I doubt if you Senators yourself could tell him.

The CHAIRMAN. Those who figured it out themselves can't tell you. That is in the record. I am free to confess it. They have so many gadgets but it worked pretty well the way they have guessed at it.

Mr. HAWKINS. The basic idea is to guarantee the farmer he can take a uart of milk and buy the same amount of steel, the man that makes that steel can buy milk for the amount of labor it took me to make the quart of milk. I understand on March 1 last year dairy farmers received 50 cents an hour for wages working 7 days a week to earn that 50 cents an hour. That is not very parity.

The CHAIRMAN. Parity income you talk about?

Mr. HAWKINS. Parity income.

The CHAIRMAN. We have had that written in the law a long time, but have never been able to make it work yet.

Mr. HAWKINS. I am not criticizing this committee. I know you are here trying to work out something to correct the defects but I have been milking cows since 1925. That is the way of living wtih me. It is a way of life of my family. I have two college-graduate sons back home on the farm with me. That is all the labor on the farm there today, the three of us.

The CHAIRMAN. How many acres have you!

Mr. HAWKINS. We have a 200-acre farm with about 165 clear,
The CHAIRMAN. How many cows?

Mr. HAWKINS. Sixty-five mature milk cows,

The CHAIRMAN. Are you in a certain milkshed?

Mr. HAWKINS. I am in the Greenwood milkshed.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you use a marketing agreement?

Mr. HAWKINS. We don't have a marketing agreement, a Federal marketing agreement in South Carolina. We have a State dairy commission that has never functioned as to setting price in South Carolina. We are proud of that record, sir. We have always been able to work out our problems around the table, the distributors, on a statewide basis through our own organization.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any gadgets that prevent milk coming from other States?

Mr. HAWKINS. You can't keep milk out of South Carolina as long as it meets local health requirements.

The CHAIRMAN. But local health requirements are sometimes of such character that it is hard to get milk in from other States? Mr. HAWKINS. That is not in the dairy commission law. The CHAIRMAN. You would be surprised how it is in some. How much milk comes in from outside of South Carolina? Mr. HAWKINS. I don't know.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any?

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, I think every plant in South Carolina is importing milk from as far away as Fort Wayne, Ind.

We got some this fall.

The CHAIRMAN. In shortage?

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you still in shortage?

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes; at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. The dairy industry in this State must be pretty prosperous.

Mr. HAWKINS. Much to the contrary.

Senator JOHNSTON. What is the butterfat requirements in South Carolina?

Mr. HAWKINS. Three point eight.

Senator JOHNSTON. That is higher than a great many other States.
Mr. HAWKINS. Federal law is 3.25, Federal health ordinance.
The CHAIRMAN. A plan has been proposed that it be made at least 4.
Mr. HAWKINS. We tried to get that in this State, but compromised

on 3.8.

The CHAIRMAN. The reason for making it 4 percent is that in that way you let the children use the cream up rather than use it to make butter and sell to Uncle Sam. That might be a good way out of these butter surpluses we have.

Mr. HAWKINS. If it were made 4 percent there would be a shortage of butter overnight.

The CHAIRMAN. You are for it?

Mr. HAWKINS. I have been for it. Milking Jersey cows you know I would be.

Now, while we are on these Federal milk ordinances, we think it is very, very important that these Federal milk ordinances be retained. They act as a stabilization element whereby when chaos arises in a place you can call on them to stabilize. They were enacted back in the early thirties, these Federal milk marketing ordinances.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that was in the same act we talked about. Mr. HAWKINS. Way back. And they worked very satisfactorily. Any changes that they see fit to make to improve them we think should be made from within the law and not rewriting it becauseThe CHAIRMAN. Can you suggest any improvements?

Mr. HAWKINS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You want to leave well enough alone?
Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We got that from many areas.

Mr. HAWKINS. I hope you don't tamper with it too much. This new school milk program that you have enacted for the past 2 years, we want to commend you for that, the Senate and the House, that enacted the bill. It is serving several purposes. The main purpose is it is teaching children to drink and like milk and they will carry that habit through life and our nutritionists and doctors are coming to believe old people need milk even more than children to maintain good bone structure.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't want to throw bouquets at myself, but I authored that bill together with Senator Russell of Georgia. Of course we got the support of all the Senators, many of them were not in the Senate when the program was put into effect, but I do agree with you it is a very sound program and if they listen to me and Ölin here and others who are on the Appropriations Committee, instead of providing $50 to $60 million we might make it $100 million.

Senator SCOTT. As a former dairyman I have listened to a lot of people talk about the school lunch program and I agree with you on that. I would like to ask one thing: