1 Balance at June 30, 1953, was $327,440,518, of which $27,440,518 was returned to the Treasury. Subsequently $3,859,808 was recovered from prior year obligations and became available for sec. 32 programs in 1954.

In addition to the $300 million available in fiscal year 1956 from the unused balance of the prior year, there is also avaliable $166,807,174 which represents 30 percent of the custom receipts which were collected during calendar year 1954.

There are attached tables showing how the funds were used during the fiscal years 1954 and 1955. Commodities listed under the project Direct Distribution are donated to schools and other eligible outlets but not necessarily within the year in which purchased. The $168 million, referred to in the Washington Newsletter, represents the cost of surplus commodities distributed during the fiscal year 1955 and includes commodities donated by the Commodity Credit Corporation as well as those purchased with section 32 funds. Of the $168 million, approximately $113 million represents commodities from CCC stocks and $55 million from section 32 purchase.

Very truly yours,

ARTHUR J. HOLMAAS, Director, Budget and Finance Division. Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, sir. My name is Joe C. Lewis. I am chairman of the California Farm Research and Legislative Committee. I wish to heartily endorse the statement of Mr. George Sehlmeyer on the farm program.

Our committee is in favor of 100 percent of 100 percent parity with a limitation on the $25,000 gross income per individual farmer, and the limitation of $2,500 payments to each individual farmer. And if any farmer wishes to produce over and above that and compete on the world market he is welcome to do so and, thereby, have more food for the people of the world.

We feel, in that way the Government will find economy in the thing and we feel sure that the payments to arrive at 100 percent of parity do not necessarily come as actual cash payments on each crop. We feel, for instance, low-cost credit is necessary to the farmer so that he can purchase land and equipment and fertilizer and improve his land. We feel that the Soil Conservation Service should be expanded and kept within the United States Department of Agriculture and more money appropriated because of the increased cost in operating the soil-conservation districts.

We feel they should be operated locally as they are now and not changed. We feel that in California and in the West low-cost water and power is necessary for economy in farming.

64440-56-pt. 4- -9

We feel that Federal crop insurance is necessary. If Federal crop insurance is all over the Nation, it will be a lot cheaper for the farmer. It will help the farmer in all States, like when the heat came and they lost a lot.

We are in favor of the fruit-allotment programs to school lunches, for handicapped, for low-income people, for the Indians in some of the reservations who, I have heard, are short on food.

We feel that we should work through the United Nations to supply certain surplus foods for hungry people all over the world.

The CHAIRMAN. At whose expense?

Mr. LEWIS. I think all of the nations should contribute to the cost. The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you but you do not want the United States to do it alone, do you?

Mr. LEWIS. We are the greatest and the richest.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We are carrying the whole load now. You would not want to add to it, would you?

Mr. LEWIS. I believe, Senator, that food would be a better bargaining agency with the hungry people throughout the world than perhaps guns, and forcible agreements, when there are real emergencies that exist, such as in South America, Africa, and Asia. Just the same as when we have a disaster here in the United States. My sympathy goes out to the farmer whose peaches are frozen, whose cattle are starving and need water or feed, and whose cotton is ruined by insects in the Southeast.

As a brother citizen and having a friendly feeling toward all people, myself, as a taxpayer and a farm owner, I am willing to assist to the best of my ability, the same as I contribute to the Red Cross and other charitable organizations.

That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you ever so much.

Is Mr. Abbott here? (No response.)

Is Mr. Dastrup here? I would appreciate your filing your statement, and if you have anything new for the record, I will be glad to hear you.

STATEMENT OF LAMAR A. DASTRUP, SIGURD, UTAH

Mr. DASTRUP. Mr. Chairman and members, I am Lamar Dastrup, of Sigurd, Utah. I am a farmer and never have in my life received any income from any other source. I assure you that if you would like me to read this, it poses quite a different angle than anything we have heard today.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. I hope it does. I will be glad to hear from you.

Mr. DASTRUP. I agree with every farmer in America that he is entitled to not just 90 percent of parity but 100 percent of parity for the things he produces, but he must obtain the same through sound economic polícies and principles that are morally right, if he expects to long exist as a free, independent citizen.

I am opposed to ACP payments or any other form of handout because the principle is wrong. It is not right to tax my neighbor and give to me. And by the same token, it is wrong to take from big industry and give to me. This policy is economically unsound and morally degrading.

No farmer can expect to carry on a free undominated business if he continues to sell to the public or Government an interest in his farm by accepting their money to level his land, build his irrigation headgates, and so forth.

Rigid price supports are wrong, and in every place that they have been used they have not solved the problem but have built up large surpluses which are not only a financial burden on the taxpayer, but are depressing to farmers' market prices. They only bring temporary relief to those who receive them, while in the long run they only add fat to the fire and make things worse.

Rigid price supports inevitably call for quotas and controls, and no farmer can carry on a free business under a system of Government domination. And any farmer who demands high price supports, it seems to me, admits that he is unable to carry on his own business and asks the Government to do it for him.

Right now diverted acreage from the supported crops are growing crops in direct competition to nonsupported crops and helping to depress their markets; and as for controls, because of the wheat program I have been denied the privilege of growing on my farm feed that would be used on my farm and would never reach the market, only in the form of beef, a commodity not supported.

Government supports call for Government domination which kills individual initiative and destroys the incentive and demoralizes American agriculture.

On my farm I find there is no substitute for production. If I am to maintain the high standard of living that I am entitled to, I must have an honest and fair price for what I can produce, not on just part of my farm but on each and every acre of it.

Of course, net income is the thing of importance and here are a few things I would suggest that might help:

First, expand markets both at home and abroad wherever possible. There are people on the earth who need all the food that is produced. America's problem is to get these surplus commodities into the market basket of the folks who need them.

The CHAIRMAN. If you do not want any Government interference, why do you not let yourself and business sell it? As I understand what you are saying, you do not want any kind of Government interference. Is that, in essence, what you are saying?

Mr. DASTRUP. That is the trend. That is what I am saying. That is the trend that I would not like things to drift into.

The CHAIRMAN. Yet, you are saying that we ought to look to markets abroad?

Mr. DASTRUP. I think that we should not alone individually but when we get outside of the realms of the United States, the Government should help find these price supports.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose it cannot, what do you do with the surplus?

Mr. DASTRUP. I am not able to say what can be done, but I think that the Government can do something along that line by furnishing food instead of dollars to people who need something to eat. It will do more for peace than some things that are being done, in my estimation.

The CHAIRMAN. It costs dollars to do that; does it not?
Mr. DASTRUP. It would cost some dollars to do it.

The CHAIRMAN. Quite a few. All right, proceed, sir.

Mr. DASTRUP. Second, help keep down expenses by giving some relief on the tax burden. Tax farmers only on their net income as other people are taxed. Relieve them of the burdensome property tax, tax on gasoline used on their farms, and other items which they must use in the production of their produce.

Third, help to curb labor costs which were accelerated by the recent minimum wage boost. Allow teen-agers to work and occupy their time in a worthwhile enterprise and thereby help solve the juvenile delinquency problem.

Fourth, help supply adequate credit to farmers at the lowest interest rate possible. Personally I find ample credit, but interest rates are burdensome. Farmers need credit sufficient to finance all soil conservation practices that are beneficial to their farm. With sufficient time and low interest to make these practices self-liquidating, they then will be within the reach of every farmer, and he can plan his own business.

Fifth, in fine, the Government should do everything possible to help farmers to help themeselves and thereby help build a free, independent, and prosperous agriculture, which has been in the past, and always will be the best insurance that can possibly be had of always an abundance of food and fiber for the American people.

We do recognize this fact, that there is a farm problem. Farmers are in a cost-price squeeze, and it should be the concern of every American. I don't think, however, that it is as serious a crisis as some politicians would like us to believe

Let's find a sound solution for the problem and not make a boomerang for the farmers to throw that will fly back and hit us in the face. I would like to just add one statement that is not on this. That is, that as far as I am personally concerned, I am much more concerned with becoming a ward of the Government because of controls than I am of going broke in economics.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Dastrup.

Mr. Buchanan, have you anything new to give us?

Mr. BUCHANAN. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I am seeking right now.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I have not a prepared statement. I would just like to say one thing. It will take me only a minute.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, I will be glad to hear you.

STATEMENT OF R. D. BUCHANAN, RICHFIELD, UTAH

Mr. BUCHANAN. My name is R. D. Buchanan. I come from the central part of Utah. My farming operation consists of cattle, lamb feeding, hay and grain, and sugar beet production.

I would just like to make one or two comments, Mr. Chairman, and members, and that is, that I do not want the Brannan plan with a coat of paint.

I think that if American agriculture is going to remain free it has to remain more on its own. I am thoroughly convinced that much of the price-supports program that we have had has not been the panacea that we have been told to expect from it.

I think if we are going to survive and be less socialistic-and I think there is a general trend in the country that way-that American agriculture must remain free, and we should work out our own problems. I do not think that anybody should solve our problems but the farmers. I am mighty glad to have come about 800 miles. I think I probably have come the farthest of anybody in this group to hear what has been said, and some of the things I have heard have practically made my hair stand on end, because I fear some of the things we are getting into ourselves, in asking for 100 percent supports, are not good.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Buchanan, I wish to say that I am pleased to hear that you have come so far, and looking over this list I reversed the order, in order to hear you, because you came so far.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you very much. I will say that I am for 100 percent parity for farmers. I do not think we can survive in the economy if we go down to 84 or 81 percent, and they tell us that next year we will.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want the Government to provide for that? Mr. BUCHANAN. No, sir; I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you obtain it?

All of us want 100 percent parity. If you can give us a formula to keep the Government out of it, fine. How would you do it?

Mr. BUCHANAN. I think it will adjust itself in time. I am thoroughly convinced of that. I can see the evidence of the cotton farmer and the wheat farmer, even though he has had price supports, his problems are ever-mounting because we have these tremendous surpluses. The CHAIRMAN. You grow beets; if we did not have a program on the production of sugar, for how much would you sell your beets? Mr. BUCHANAN. If it did not limit us as to how much we could raise, we could grow a lot more.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not answering my question. I said suppose you did not have any law at all governing how much would come into the country, but let sugar come in freely, how much do think you would get for your sugar?

you

Mr. BUCHANAN. I dare say that we would not get as much as we are getting.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you would not. It would not pay you to grow it.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Sure, but I feel that in the case of sugar and woolen commodities, that we do not grow in excess; probably in times of emergency we need to preserve that industry in our Nation.

The CHAIRMAN. You are well protected, pretty well protected on sugar and wool, are you not?

Mr. BUCHANAN. I would not say so, because we are subject to fixed labor costs. The Government has told us how much we have to pay. They tell us whom we can hire. That is, in my part of the country. I do not know what they do here. We are subject to that. Last year I remember a man from the Labor Department came out to my farm. We were engaged in harvesting beets. He asked me questions. I did not like that. I thought he had no business being there, at least that was part of the program. That was the regimentation I was under as the result of being a beet grower.

Mr. HAGEN. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.