The CHAIRMAN. The equipment was bought on a high market, too; was it?

Mr. BUTLER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you ever so much.
Mr. Connor.

STATEMENT OF W. B. CONNOR, HUBBARD, TEX.

Mr. CONNOR. Mr. Chairman and Senator Ellender, I thought that I had a bone. I believe somebody done ran off with it. In other words, they are doing a pretty good job on chewing it. Still I would like to say a few words.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, proceed. We are glad to hear from you. Mr. CONNOR. I am W. B. Connor, from Hill County, Tex., Hubbard, Tex., where the two highways cross. I live out on a farm west of Hubbard about 4 miles. I would like to say that I am a balanced farmer, and what I mean by that is taking everything I can do to hold by balance right now. I raise cattle, I raise cotton.

I have 405 acres, about one-half of it is in pasture, and about onehalf of it is in cultivated acres, which gives me a mighty favorable position as an all-around farmer.

Senator EASTLAND. What is your acreage allotment for cotton?
Mr. CONNOR. 65 acres.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that dry land?

Mr. CONNOR. That is dry land.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your production there?

Mr. CONNOR. You mean the average production on that land? It runs around, I think, my lint average is about 165 pounds, something like that.

The CHAIRMAN. Of lint?

Mr. CONNOR. About 165 pounds on the average. It is pretty good land. I do not know just what it runs, since these droughts have been on. You see, the reason I say I am a balanced farmer is that I would like especially to signify that I am not speaking for a mixed farmer. We have had a lot of mixed farmers doing our speaking for us in this country for quite awhile. That is the fellow who has oil wells in one corner of his place, or a business in town.

I would like to say that I am 45 years of age. I had the privilege of watching this country grow through agricultural periods of the worst kind that I have ever seen in my life, and then through the best kinds that I have ever seen in agriculture, very prosperous times. The farmers have been prosperous.

I would like to say that I am not too young but what I can remember that, and I am not too old but what I have forgotten a whole lot of it. I think that a lot of our problems are due to the fact that we do not want to accept the second commandment and that is "Love they neighbor as thyself."

I would like to say that this testimony today proves to me that we are very muchly our brother's keeper. In other words, I have a little bit of stuff here prepared and I would like to read it off, as maybe I can better read it than I can speak it.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you got something new in it?

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, sir; I think that you will find a few new facts in this.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, let us hear them.

Mr. CONNOR. We are, with the competitive thinking, with respect to the price supports on agriculture, and at what levels basic commodities should be supported, we should all bear in mind a few of these facts.

We have been under the pricing effect as an aid to our economic ills ever since the thirties. That is the price supports. We started that. In other words, we might revert to a thing like this, revert back to the start of what we started for. We started it because the farmer needed it badly. That was before we had a war, before we had too much overproduction or knew there were any problems in agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. That was during the Hoover depression?

Mr. CONNOR. But I do not know what you called it, or where we lay responsibility at anybody's feet. They are good for us, those times. They put us to thinking.

The CHAIRMAN. It is called by that, whether that is true or not, I

do not know.

Mr. CONNOR. It has become what we might call the American way of life. I do not think that any man can deny that. We have depended upon this. We have all grown to depend upon it. Our business, bankers and our farmers.

Taking it off would have the same effect as taking the silver guaranty out from under the paper dollar, or the lowering of any relative value. If you would lower it, it would lower the guaranty of the silver dollar, because we have all gotten used to it.

I have heard bankers say that when you take the guaranty off these firm commodities, they will close their doors to the farmers.

And the Government has the job of running them all.

It has become one of the greatest social events that this country has ever made. It has had the effect of touching every individual's welfare in the United States. I do not think any man can deny that, because we all have the habit of going to the table to eat three times a day.

I would like to add that we might remember what price supports do. It enables us to create enough of everything.

Some of the foreign countries are adopting price-support measures in order to create enough for their people to eat. As well as in other countries.

We have had a tendency to raise the living standards of our country. With our price supports, I mean. In other words, somebody may be called communistic or something like that, you can call it anything, where they go up by a group or decided by a bunch. If you think it is good, you can call it communistic, but so long as you apply the golden rule of democracy, that is, the majority rule, why democracy is in its best working ability.

With the American farmer living in the world of price tags and list prices, it would be impossible for him to survive without a price tag on his agriculture. There is not anybody big enough to do this, except the Government of the people, thereby placing the responsibility on everyone. I do not think that any businessman would operate without a price tag on his stuff. That is, just set it out on the shelf and say: "What will you give me for it?"

I think there is very little argument against this fact, that everyone is related to the subject. I think everyone is related to this agricultural subject.

The American farmer has become one of the greatest cash buyers of our country, the agricultural dollar having generated power of about 8 to 1 in our national income, after it has been spent. I do not think there is any argument about that.

I think the statistics available show that. Our dollar has the biggest generative power of any dollar.

The CHAIRMAN. You have been stating the problems so far. Get down to the solution.

Mr. CONNOR. With this view, supporting that dollars should become a lot of people's concern that do not live on the land, this should be represented to the people correctly and in a nonpartisan manner at all times by our Government. With our agricultural economy linked so closely with the rest of our economy, anyone should know our economy cannot vie with the two segments pulling apart as they are doing now. The cause of this economic ill is mostly the lack of leadership in Washington which, in turn, has caused a weakness in all of our markets, due to the lack of confidence in the proposed new policy for agriculture. This policy calls for cheaper prices for agriculture, in the face of high fixed prices that the farmer has to pay.

At the present time, it just does not make sense. With the great risk involved in agriculture due to the gamble with the weather and insects, and also the high cost of production, the farmer cannot risk complete speculation in his market.

No good businessman would want to take this position; "What will you give me for this product?"

I think his answer would be, "No." Why then, should a farmer hope to succeed with that kind of a market?

The level of the support applied to agriculture should be a rigid 90 percent at all times, regulated by the farmers of the parity system with no more flexible action than what is in parity. Parity is flexible, is it not-isn't parity flexible?

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. CONNOR. The farmer should be required to keep production in line with demand as nearly as can be figured out by our United States Department of Agriculture. A most careful estimation should be made than has been made in the last 3 years.

May I point out the way the farmer was willing to do his part? Each time he was asked to vote quotas. The cotton farmer voted 93 percent for 17 million acres, and it was raised to 22 million acres by the Secretary of Agriculture. Is that right? That was for 1954. That was 1953. They voted for quotas in the fall of 1953 for 1954. The quota was raised after we voted for 17 million acres and again for 1955 the wheat men voted 55 million acres for 1954. Then it was raised to 62 million acres by the Secretary. Again it was raised in acres for 1955 after he voted for quotas.

Let me ask you whose fault is it then that we have got such a surplus. I think I do not need to say, I think that nobody will deny those prices.

The CHAIRMAN. You might blame Congress for some of that.

Mr. CONNOR. I do not know who is to blame for it, but we farmers willingly showed our willingness and we should not be blamed openly to the public for the surplus problem.

The State Department blocked a lot of our export markets and the Secretary working on the other end the two have done a fair job of creating a great surplus to be used to paint our agricultural system a black eye to the American and a burden to the taxpayer, but I do not think that can be argued because we have been pointed out that we are strictly a burden to the taxpayer; just a stepchild.

We can export all of our surpluses in a short while if we will trade with the countries of the world that want and need our surpluses badly. I am bitterly opposed to subsidies on our commodities as a means of increasing exports to other countries. Those paint us farmers with a black eye and will start a price war with the other countries at a time when their prices need stabilizing badly to help them get on their feet.

If we use our surplus food and fiber to trade with countries who need them, it will become the greatest weapon that we have to combat communism.

I would like to add that as a matter of trade, we accept their currency; in other words, set up an international bank of some kind and accept their currency. What is the difference in accepting their currency if we get some kind of a little bit rather than subsidy? The CHAIRMAN. We have tried that.

Senator EASTLAND. We do that now?

The CHAIRMAN. We can do that now.

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, sir, but that has not been the case, though for the last 2 or 3 years.

Senator EASTLAND. Yes. sir.

Mr. CONNOR. We can accept their currency?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sure.

The only trouble is that when we go to buy some of the things that we need, they do not want to accept their own currencies; they want American dollars. That is the trouble.

Mr. CONNOR. You mean that they do not want what?

The CHAIRMAN. They are willing to buy from us in their own currencies, you see, and when we take their currencies, they are not willing to accept that same currency for things that we need from them, such as copper, etc.

Mr. CONNOR. That is not the way I understand it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the way, I am telling you.

Mr. CONNOR. In other words, Russia was offered $2.50 a pound for butter last year on the world market; in other words, the world market must have been in pretty bad-butter must have been pretty bad on the world market-and they offered to pay for that in gold, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. That was just propaganda.

Mr. CONNOR. It might have been propaganda but it came out of the United States Department of Agriculture releases.

The CHAIRMAN. I have been all over this world, and I do know. Mr. CONNOR. I understand.

The CHAIRMAN. In many cases, we could sell a lot of our surplus commodities for the currencies of the countries that buy them, but we are confronted with this situation; that when we go to buy tin, when

we go to buy rubber, when we go to buy things that we need, to buy wool, Australia, the United Kingdom, will not let us use that currency. They want us to use dollars. They will not turn it loose, unless we do.

Mr. CONNOR. United Kingdom is England?
The CHAIRMAN. That is England.

Mr. CONNOR. Are they running our show?
The CHAIRMAN. Apparently they are.

Mr. CONNOR. I will tell you, I believe there are some countries that would like to trade with us that way if we traded. I just cannot help but believe it. Their currency is becoming more stable. It is becoming harder all of the time. I think they would be willing, you know, to trade with us, if we just would trade. I think we have fallen down badly on this trade situation.

The CHAIRMAN. The great trouble is that some of the things we might be able to buy from them, we already have here in surplus. For instance, if we sold things that we have to a country like Thailand, they might be willing to sell us rice.

Mr. CONNOR. How would the subsidy eliminate the trouble, if you do not want to buy the stuff with their currency? How is the subsidy going to eliminate that trouble?

The CHAIRMAN. You are the witness, go ahead, I do not know.

Mr. CONNOR. If we use our surplus foods then, and fiber, to trade with these countries that need them, if we have any surplus, as long as we have a lot of hungry people in the world, instead it becomes what we might call a hoard if we keep it. In taking stock of our surplus, let us also bear in mind the scarcity of our American farmers. Two years ago, the American farmer was 54 years of age on the average. There have been a lot of young farmers who have quit in the last 2 years and a lot more are going to quit if the present policy is continued. The cover by the social security will retire a great number of our older farmers.

With these two factors working together, the American farmer may become as scarce as the whooping crane we hear about.

While we are seeking exports, we could become an import country. I think that is what is taking place on wool. I heard a little bit of the argument a while ago on wool. I think that when we started this wool program, that we were importing three-fourths of the wool we used in the United States, is that right?

The CHAIRMAN. That is about it.

Mr. CONNOR. Yet, we surely do not want to become an import country while we are seeking exports.

To you lawmakers, I would like to say that any law that you write, please remember that man comes before law.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

I wish to state that it is now almost 3 o'clock and I am going to stay as long as you will. This morning we had a total of 66 witnesses and 3 more have been added, making 69 witnesses altogether. Up to now we have heard 25 witnesses, and still have about 44 more to hear from, so I am going to ask the witnesses from here on to present new ideas. I do not want to limit anybody that has anything new to report, but let us try to confine statements to new material if we can,