The methods by which this 100 percent of parity would be obtained would be through direct production payments to the farmer, purchase agreements, or loans, whichever fit the particular commodity better. Senator EASTLAND. What you would do, if I understand you, is to let the market sink to its natural level, and make up the difference between what a farmer got in the market place Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. Senator EASTLAND (continuing). And a hundred percent of parity by check? Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir; on some commodities where that works better than the loan or the purchase agreement, go ahead and channel it that way. Senator EASTLAND. Yes, I see. Mr. DICKIE. And I most certainly think there should be an outside dollar limit on an individual limitation to make sure that the farmowning corporations and your land barons do not get the lion's share of the money from this program. The CHAIRMAN. Could you expand on that? What would be your limitation? Mr. DICKIE. Well, that is-I notice there is a House Agriculture Committee that just started its work in Texas to determine that. I would call on the Legislature of this country to determine that figure. Senator EASTLAND. What is your judgment? We want your help. The CHAIRMAN. That is what I want to know. Mr. DICKIE. I should think somewhere in line with other segments of our economy, so that I could live accordingly, with a fair return on my investment-say, if I make more than $25,000 a year, why, put that on a two-price system. The CHAIRMAN. Would you want to be assured by some program of, say, $25,000 per year on your farm? Mr. DICKIE. No, sir; I would not want to be assured of that. I would want to be assured that we have a hundred percent of parity up to a certain point. The CHAIRMAN. That point is $25,000? Mr. DICKIE. That is a living. The CHAIRMAN. Gross? Mr. DICKIE. If that is a figure arrived at, I think somewhere in that neighborhood. Senator EASTLAND. What is your judgment now? What is it? Senator EASTLAND. $25,000? Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What would you do with a fellow who does not owe as much as you do? Here you owe $129,000. How much interest do you pay? Mr. DICKIE. 512 percent. The CHAIRMAN. That is about $7,000 you pay per year in interest alone? Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir; and I cannot-I know full well right now that I cannot pay interest, operating costs, and taxes on my land. I have not done it for the last 2 years, and I cannot pay it another year under this program. The CHAIRMAN. Now, suppose we had a farmer who had the same acreage you had, but who does not owe anything. Would you expect to get more because of your indebtedness or would you be Mr. DICKIE. No, sir; no sir; I would not. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, instead of getting a return by way of interest on your farm, you would have to pay it. The CHAIRMAN. So that there would be a difference there between you and the other fellow. If he got 512 percent return, and you had to pay 512 percent, that would be a difference of about $14,000 between the two; is that right? Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. So that in reaching the figure of $25,000, you would account for that sum in a fair return on the acreage that the farmer owned? Mr. DICKIE. I say that would be a technicality that would have to be worked out by the Congress. The CHAIRMAN. I know about technicalities. You know, we have got to get that from you fellows who propose it. Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. I am giving you my interpretation. The CHAIRMAN. It is easy for you to come before us and say, "I would like to have a hundred percent of parity on everything I grow." Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. When you include chickens and turkeys and any other commodity Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN (continuing). That is grown on the farm, that is produced on a farm; you get into problems. Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. I do not say The CHAIRMAN. That makes this insurmountable. Mr. DICKIE. I do not say we will not get into problems. But I say right now our problem is this: That the family-type farmer is being starved off the farm. The CHAIRMAN. Would you consider your farm, an 800-acre farm, with 200 acres Mr. DICKIE. Fifteen-hundred-acre farm. The CHAIRMAN. Fifteen-hundred-acre farm Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Would you call that a family-type farm? Mr. DICKIE. I would call it such. I have one hired man, and I work full time, and operate it with one full-time hired man. The CHAIRMAN. What is the average size of the Texas farm; do you know? Mr. DICKIE. I would say 300 acres; that would be a guess. In Wyoming it is 3,200; in Louisiana it is about 90. Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You can see the problem we would have. Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. That is why I think that this family-sized unit would have to be determined in dollars rather than in acreage. Senator EASTLAND. Mr. Dickie, what is the difference between your proposals and the old Brannan plan? Mr. DICKIE. There is very little difference. I would say it was broadened some; wouldn't you? Senator EASTLAND. Well, I do not know; I am trying to ask you. Mr. DICKIE. With the loan and purchase agreements and the production payments, whichever works best on the commodities. Senator EASTLAND. Well, essentially it is the Brannon plan? Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, in your plan, would you propose a distribution of the land so that all farmers who desired a farm would have sufficient acreage? Mr. DICKIE. No, sir; I would not. The CHAIRMAN. You would not want to do that? Mr. DICKIE. I think that will take care of itself. If we get our price for our commodity, a man can go in the bank and show the banker where he can make a living at it, and the banker will loan him the money and let him get into it. But under this situation where you cannot show him you can make any money, it is pretty hard to borrow money, and I do not think I can borrow a dime from any other bank. I did not talk that way when I went to see the banker. I told him what a rosy picture it was, otherwise he would not have loaned me a dime. Senator EASTLAND. I was going to ask you that question. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. Now, if you do not mind, I would just like to go a little further Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN (continuing). When you first started farming you had just gotten out of college? Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How much did you invest in that farm? Mr. DICKIE. I had $10,000 from my father; he gave me $10,000. Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How much did you borrow on that farm? Mr. DICKIE. I borrowed $16,000 and built me a home, and sold it for $50,000. The CHAIRMAN. The home? Mr. DICKIE. The whole farm; and I went from there and bought land at Krum. The CHAIRMAN. How much did you pay for the farm originally, the farm that we are talking about, 1,500 acres? Mr. DICKIE. I paid $10,000 for 121 acres. The CHAIRMAN. What about the rest of it? Mr. DICKIE. Well, sir, with the expansion I did that, and I borrowed from my father. I got 700 acres. That land is east of Denton. The CHAIRMAN. Let us put it this way, then: In your entire operation, what was your investment? Mr. DICKIE. I had $10,000 of my own money. I borrowed from my father, that was the only means of getting in it and, I say, that I had unusual circumstances, and if I had not had my father as a backlog, I could not have gotten into it to the point that I have to this day. The CHAIRMAN. That is why I am asking you these questions because I doubt that you would get any banker to do that for you. Mr. DICKIE. That is right; and that is the picture I am painting. I do not think that is healthy with a man who has a complete knowledge-with a man who knows agriculture and who knows it all his life, and I grew up on my father's ranch in west Texas and, as I say, I knew what I wanted to do. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. Mr. DICKIE. I think as a part of the overall program which should be developed, the Farmers Union plan on this conservation acreage reserves seems to me to be a necessary part of the whole. I do not regard this testimony as the solution to all our agricultural problems. We must continually strive to improve these programs. But I say that this patchwork quilt of agricultural legislation should be brought to a halt, and we should have a dynamic, unified, longrange program to be established, and if the Congress thinks that the solution to the farm problem lies in corporate farming, let them so state. But if, on the other hand, the national legislators believe, as we are told the legislature of this country believes, that the family-type unit should be saved, let them state that and define it in terms that can be economically measured. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you were in Congress now, and you would want the family-type unit, and you were opposed to corporate ownership. Mr. DICKIE. No, sir; I am not opposed to it. But I say under the present program that is what we are going to. The CHAIRMAN. You mean it is leading to that? Mr. DICKIE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And you would stop it by making it more attractive for farmers. Mr. DICKIE. Making it where a man can make a living. The ones who are in it and now cannot make a living-and I have gone into the homes of these veterans for 5 years now, and I have seen what they are making, and they have not paid their way, and they want a farm, and they know farming, and I think there ought to be a place for them. The CHAIRMAN. Are there many veterans, let us say, of the Korean war, who purchased farms in your locality who cannot make a go of it? Mr. DICKIE. There are very few that can even get into agriculture on tenant farms as tenant farmers. The capital is too much for that, and they are working day labor. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. Mr. DICKIE. That concludes my testimony, except to say that I think you are on the right track in seeking the individual farmer's views, and we are behind you 100 percent in that endeavor. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Bender? [Applause.] All right, Mr. Bender, will you give us your name in full, please, and your occupation. STATEMENT OF JAMES BENDER, MASTER, TEXAS STATE GRANGE, FREDERICKSBURG, TEX. Mr. BENDER. My name is James Bender. I am a fruitgrower in Fredericksburg, but I am representing a number of farm and ranch operators, at their request. It is generally agreed that several factors have contributed to the unfavorable condition of agriculture which today finds itself with increased operating costs and shrinking foreign markets, but I am wondering if we fully realize that as a matter of actual fact, our present problem of surpluses are in part due to our good-neighbor policy which although inherently right and properly considered as a moral responsibility to our less fortunate peoples of other lands, is nevertheless in its operation creating potential competitors in agricultural markets abroad as clearly evidenced in reports made by the International Federation of Agricultural Producers known as IFAP. Two recent reports made by this organization indicate a wheat surplus in France with a 200-million-bushel crop; Australia with 160million bushels; Italy with 300 million bushels, and Turkey with 260 million bushels. These are only some examples in wheat. Now let us look at some other products and we find that Thailand alone is exporting 1 million metric tons of rice in 1955; Egypt, Brazil, and our own neighbor, Mexico, are cutting into our cotton markets, and Italy has even a milk surplus. Unquestionably our point 4 plan in rendering technical, material, and financial aid to foreign countries is resulting in increased crop yields abroad, and although we have this moral obligation to assist other nations, we should also be realistic enough to recognize that it is affecting our foreign markets as well as those at home and will continue to do so as to technical skills resulting from the point 4 program are further perfected. Senator EASTLAND. Mr. Bender, you are exactly right. Mr. BENDER. Yes, sir. Senator EASTLAND. It has been the policy of the United States Government that has created these agricultural industries. Mr. BENDER. Yes, sir. Senator EASTLAND. Now, doesn't that point to the fact that the United States Government owes a responsibility to the American farmer to assist him in maintaining his markets and in recapturing his historic markets? Mr. BENDER. Yes, sir; it does. We are going to attempt to look at this from a long-range viewpoint, and recognizing that we will continue as a people to also recognize our moral responsibility, but to try to get our sense of values adjusted. May I make this comment: That in this point 4 plan, as we understand it, that has been extended pretty largely to agricultural operations or at least a large part of it, and what we had in mind, why not, if we are going to contínue our moral responsibility, shift from this agricultural viewpoint abroad to those manufacturing units which are necessary to produce the dollars and cents or the currency outside of agricultural products to buy our agricultural products; that is what we had in mind, shifting from the agricultural emphasis abroad to the manufacturing emphasis shall we say. Senator EASTLAND. The textile people say that we put in, financed, automatic machinery for Japan, and we created a textile industry. Hasn't there also been an emphasis on industrial development abroad? Mr. BENDER. It is my understanding that it has, sir. But unless our information is incorrect, it seems to be that the major portion of it, at least, has resulted in these increased yields in our agricultural |