It reminds me of the wheat that they grow in some of the best lands in Kansas.

With all due respect, this has not only been in effect under this administration, but the past administration did some of it.

Mr. ABBOTT. I agree with you. I agree with you.

The CHAIRMAN. So let us not put the whole fault on the present administration. Senator Anderson can tell you-he has assisted a good deal that we have tried to curtail these expenditures abroad. We made a valiant fight last year.

Senator ANDERSON. And we lost.

The CHAIRMAN. But we won out in conference.

Senator ANDERSON. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Not to the extent that we desired. With the additional evidence we have gathered this year, it is my hope that we will come prepared and be able to further reduce these, as I call them, unconscionable amounts that we are spending abroad. A lot is being wasted, in my humble judgment. There is no question about it.

I just returned from a trip. I have been living in airplanes, I told you a little while ago, since August 13. I have been in places like Formosa where for instance, we have 256, as I remember, technicians on a little island that you can almost jump across, trying to teach them how to balance economy with industry, and they do not have anything to work with. We are trying to teach them to grow rice, when they can teach us how to grow rice.

The same thing is true in Korea. We are spending in Korea almost a billion dollars. We are trying to teach them democracy, but they practice socialism. How? We have built four flour mills for them, to be operated by the state, and they do not produce wheat. We have built for them five pharmaceutical establishments. They have no technicians. So we not only build the plants for them, but we operate them as well.

If every Senator in this country who represents our people were to see what I saw this summer, they would just cut it all out next January.

Mr. DEMPSEY. That is what I have fought to do for 3 years. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. And it is coming to that point.

Mr. ABBOTT. I think also, Senator, you should limit the amount of money which can be spent for the development of land and other things in foreign lands out of the Export-Import Bank. I believe that is the name of it. They should be choked a bit.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that same prescription has been given for development in our country. A lot of our people are proposing that we kind of postpone further irrigation projects, but when you mention that in California, they want to shoot at you.

Senator ANDERSON. And we would take a little potshot at you here. [Applause.]

Mr. ABBOTT. That central Arizona project, I believe you have heard about it.

The CHAIRMAN. I happen to be on the Subcommittee on Public Works of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I have been chairman of it this year. I am proud of the fact that I was able to pro

vide for the people of this Nation 109 projects that did not even have budget estimates.

It is my belief that we have been neglecting our domestic problems too much in order to assist our friends across the sea, many of whom are not appreciative of what we are trying to do for them.

Mr. ABBOTT. Why do you not say that none of them is appreciative? The CHAIRMAN. I would not say that much, because I have met quite a few who are, but they are in the minority.

Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Abbott and I have talked many times about cotton and particularly the problems of getting cotton acreage in Arizona. Would you be surprised if I told you that a very fine cotton farmer in New Mexico, I think one of the best cotton farmers I know in New Mexico, called and asked if he could have an appointment to discuss a business matter with me. I told him, "Yes." When he got up there he said, "I want your business advice. I have been given a chance to get a large tract of land, about 1,000 acres just across the line in Mexico, with all of the water out of the Rio Grande that I want, and no trouble with Bracero contract. Do you think I would be wise in giving up my farm in New Mexico and going over into Mexico and starting to grow cotton on those 1,000 acres?"

That is the sort of thing that farmers have to face if they continually have increasing costs and no markets.

Mr. ABBOTT. I have lived through the revolution down there. In fact, 10 years in Mexico. And I saw those places sequestered and taken away, and I saw people killed over them. And I want no part of it, because you still have unrest. You still have 80-cents-a-day labor. You still have 40-cent picking. I resent very bitterly when the farm bureau tells me that I must become realistic and grow my crop, so that I can compete with the production of that land. I just cannot do it. I have some other recommendations here, Senator Ellender, which might interest you. I think they will.

In order to maintain the American way of life, protect the familysize farm-which is the heart of the American farm industry-and stop the creation of large landholdings and operations through the capitalization and exploitation of the price-support program, it is recommended that a formula for acreage allocations similar to that used by Internal Revenue in levying income tax, but not as drastic in the higher brackets, be worked out and applied. This to protect the small farmer by giving him more percentagewise than the large farm operator.

As a further guard and in order that the Commodity Credit Corporation be aided in meeting foreign competition it is recommended that in maintaining the loan program of 90 percent of parity, the actual loan be reduced to 75 percent of parity and direct payments made to make up the difference between 75 percent and 90 percent. The limit of payment to 1 individual or corporation shall be $10,000. 2. Combination of landholdings, that is, leases with owned lands and the moving allotments from owned lands to leases or from lease to lease shall be prohibited. This can be accomplished by changing the definition of a farm by striking paragraph 102 under item (A) page 11 of the handbook for 1956.

3. Allotments shall be made on a crop history basis in the particular crops to be allocated, and the tilled acreage basis shall be eliminated.

4. No movement of allotment from county to county shall be permitted unless the lands are immediately contiguous.

5. Penalties for overplanting shall be increased to 90 percent of the production of the overplant-historically or immediate whichever is the greater-with the privilege of plowout.

6. Layout or diverted acres if a rental program is contemplated shall be by legal description and of equal productive value and shall be eliminated from operation for a period of years, rather than just 1 year.

7. The acreage allotment program shall be in force continuously and not on and off, but with the Secretary of Agriculture balancing needs for domestic use and export with surplus on hand and allotments.

8. Allotments to newly developed land in any program shall not be given until 5 years after the completion of development and then shall be 5 percent of the cultivated acreage. If used, the increase shall be at the rate of 5 percent a year until the allotment shall have been established at the going historic rate.

9. Allotments shall be permitted to be idle 1 year without loss of standing.

10. A committee of 12 operating farmers of at least 25 years' experience in farming shall be created to advise the Secretary of Agriculture and to check final allocation figures. These shall come 2 each from Northeast, North Central, and Northwest, and 2 each from Southwest, Central South, and Southeast. Their findings and advice to the Secretary shall be public documents.

The CHAIRMAN. What would that cost? Have you any idea what that would cost?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes; probably half a billion dollars, but we are in a tough spot. Our production has been piled back in the Commodity Credit Corporation. It is choking us to death. We farmers did not do it. We agreed to this program. We went along and we worked in it, and it was only by bad administration that we are in the present predicament that we are in.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Abbott.
Next is Mr. McDade.

STATEMENT OF NOEL MCDADE, CLAYTON, N. MEX.

Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I have only a few comments to make. A great deal of what I would like to say has already been gone over. And I will be very brief and just file this statement here.

The CHAIRMAN. The statement will be filed as though you had read it in full into the record.

(The prepared statement of Mr. McDade is as follows:)

In considering the future agricultural program of our country the following facts must be recognized:

1. We are all agreed that in order to stabilize our agriculture and maintain the prosperity and purchasing power of our farmers which in turn brings prosperity to the small towns, villages, and cities throughout our agricultural districts the farmer and stockman must receive a fair price for the products he produces.

2. We also know that the only plan that has ever been devised that gave the farmer a definite, fair price for his products is the support-price program instituted by the Government at not less than 90 percent of parity.

3. The only way we can reduce production and eliminate burdensome surpluses is to reduce the acreage planted to such crops as are being overproduced.

4. With these three fundamental facts in mind, I respectfully submit the following plan which, I believe, would solve most of our agricultural problems. That every farmer in the United States submit a map with the legal description of his farm to the county agent of the county in which his farm is located or to an agricultural committee appointed to handle the program and on his map designate those crops he wishes to plant. These shall be set up and recorded as his base acreages. This entirely in accordance with the farmer's wishes and not under the dictation of the Department of Agriculture or anyone else.

After this job is completed the Department of Agriculture would know the exact acreage to be planted to each crop in the United States.

With last year's estimates of production available the Department could closely determine the acreage that should be planted to each crop in order to meet the requirements of our home consumption and to take care of our exports.

The reduction of the base acreages of the various crops could be easily determined. This reduction should be percentagewise and straight across the board, applying to everyone alike. Not on an historical basis that has caused so much dissatisfaction when some farmers were cut far more than others.

If it was determined that any crop should be cut 10 percent, all farmers would know immediately that he must cut his base acreage on that particular crop or crops 10 percent and he would be satisfied, for he would know that he was being treated just like all other farmers were treated. This plan can definitely be applied to the basic storable crops with the price of these crops supported at not less than 90 percent of parity. The same plan of base acreages and controls could be set up for perishable crops with prices supported by bonuses, when needed, to bring prices up to 90 percent of parity.

To my mind, this plan is simple and definite and if put into effect would immediately place the business of farming on a sound basis. The farmer would know just where he stands and it would not only stabilize his business but would stabilize all other businesses and bring prosperity to our entire country. The Government could pay a bonus to the farmer for the land left out of production for soilconservation practices which would preserve the soil for future needs. The only promise Mr. Benson holds out to the farmer and stockman so far as fair prices are concerned is set out in his six points or proposals that were published in the newspapers the next morning after his recent visit to Mr. Eisenhower. There is nothing definite about them; just a lot of words without concrete action and a vague idea that out in the future sometime the farmer may receive a fair price for his products. If these six points are all the farmer has on which to base his hopes for a fair price for his crops next year and future years he may have to wait a long time for fair prices again.

If Mr. Benson would support and get the plan I have outlined above adopted and then supplement it with his six points he would get somewhere and all this argument would be stopped.

I am bitterly opposed to the flexible price-support program for the simple reason that it is a cruel and ruthless attitude to assume toward those farmers who, because of conditions beyond their control, have produced surpluses and become victims of those speculators, dealers, and gamblers who would take advantage of him and force the price of his products as low as possible. If Mr. Benson succeeds in carrying out this idea of flexible price supports it will only mean bankruptcy and disaster to those farmers who produce a surplus. The small farmer and stockman and those who owe on their farms and ranches would be hurt most because of the fact that Mr. Benson would set the price of their products below the cost of production as he has done this year on grain sorghums. The loss of 30 percent of the price of his grain from 100 percent down to 70 percent has meant that the buyer is getting his profit and more, leaving him with nothing for his year's work. I know farmers who, this year, have produced good crops of grain sorghums and are facing bankruptcy because these crops selling at 70 percent below parity will not pay expenses.

If Mr. Benson continues his program of lower price supports, to be still lower next year, together with a new modern parity that in itself is still lower, the grain farmer is facing disaster as sure as he is a farmer.

If Congress repeals Mr. Benson's flexible price law and restores 90 percent of parity and provides for fair and equitable acreage reductions and controls applied alike to every farmer, agriculture would immediately be placed on a sound basis, confidence would be restored, prosperity would return to the farmer, and this era of uncertainty, chaos, and confusion would end.

Because of low prices for farm products and the loss of profit in agriculture, it is bringing about a most dangerous condition in our country and that is the

movement of our farm populations to our large metropolitan areas and the concentration of large populations in our big cities, and the loss of populations in our small towns and cities in the agricultural areas. Many of our farm people are moving to the city where their individuality is lost in the maelstrom of seething humanity, where if they lose their jobs today they are hungry tomorrow. By all means let us keep our small farmers on the farm and prosperous by giving him a fair price for his products and we will continue to have a strong virile Nation of happy prosperous people.

It is possible that in those areas where production can be increased by heavy fertilization and narrowing the rows of crops grown, especially in our irrigated districts, production may have to be controlled by marketing quotas.

(Mr. McDade also submitted a copy of the testimony of Floyd S. Elliott, Dalhart, Tex., before the House Committee on Agriculture, which is on file with the committee.)

Mr. McDADE. The first thing that I would like to say is that in considering this problem that is before us there are three fundamental principles of economics involved.

First, we are all agreed that in order to stabilize our agriculture and maintain the prosperity and purchasing power of our farmers which in turn brings prosperity to the small towns, villages, and cities throughout our agricultural districts, the farmer and stockman must receive a fair price for the products he produces.

Second, we also know that the only plan that has ever been devised that gave the farmer a definite, fair price for his products is the support-price program instituted by the Government at not less than 90 percent of parity.

Third, the only way we can reduce production and eliminate burdensome surpluses is to reduce the acreage plant to such crops as are being overproduced.

Those are the three principles.

With these three fundamental facts in mind, I respectfully submit the following plan. I will not go into that and read it all, but just briefly it is that the farmers of our country, especially those producing basic crops should come forward and file with the county agent or with an agricultural committee a map of his farm, and then he himself designate on that map the acreages that he wishes to plant. The commmittee would immediately set that up as his basic acreage and record it. After that is done the Secretary of Agriculture would know exactly the amount of acreages in the United States to be planted. With the estimates of the preceding year of overproduction it would be

The CHAIRMAN. You mean as to each crop-the acreage as to each crop?

Mr. McDADE. That is right. With that knowledge and with the estimates of the preceding year he could very easily determine the percentage of cut for the acreage next year. For instance, take wheat. If it took a 10-percent reduction of wheat acreage to bring the production down, he could just announce that, "We are going to reduce the base acreages of wheat 10 percent." Likewise on cotton, corn, peanuts, rice, and those basic crops.

Well, the result of that would be that the farmer would know immediately where he stood. And then support the crops at 90 percent of parity.

The CHAIRMAN. You would apply that to the basics only?

Mr. McDADE. Well, we all know that when it comes to perishables, I would say that the same thing could be done with perishables. We