STATEMENT OF W. L. EDELMON, FRIONA, TEX.

Mr. EDELMON. Senator Ellender, I am W. L. Edelmon, from Friona, a resident of Parmer County, Tex., and I would like to point out a recent report of the President's Economic Advisory Commission in that our national economy at the present time, at the rate it is moving today, is about $392 billion, about a $7 billion increase in the gross national product; and, at the same time, that same board reports about a $1 billion annual decrease from 1954 of farm products.

The gross farm product at the present time or at the present rate is about $11 billion, and with about a $1 billion decrease, how long can our economy continue under such an operation? In other words, with our national economy moving upward and our farm economy moving downward, we are at the mercy of our National Congress to provide a stopgap.

Industry, farm machinery industry-the price can be set by possibly three producers. Our automobile industry, the prices can possibly be set by four producers.

The labor situation has the right to strike, and the protection under our National Labor Relations, and yet the right to strike is denied the farmer in that he is castigated if he does strike.

You know of those situations where the milk producers attempting to strike and the publicity that goes with it, that they will take food from starving babies, so that situation is out so far as we see it, and it is left for us to go to the National Congress to give us a measure of relief.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your remedy? That is what I would like to hear now.

Mr. EDELMON. All right.

The suggestion that I would make would be in keeping with what has been presented here today, that is, the soil-bank deal, so that we would prevent the glut in our industry and, at the same time, make it possible for the farmer to be in the position if we are ever called on for an all-out war effort, should it be needed, he can produce more than he could if we continue under the depletion plan at the present time.

So regardless of the mechanics that would have to be used work out an equitable payment, we will say, on that land that would be diverted, I think we could leave it to the discretion of our lawmakers to provide that on the basis that the farmer needs that protection just the same as industry needs that protection since he works on an all-out war effort.

The farmer needs to be in a position to come to the aid of the Nation at the time he is called upon and, among other things, I would suggest that the parity formulas, the so-called or accepted formulas, at the present time, they have our close scrutiny as to how they were arrived at, and whether or not there is a justifiable difference in one commodity to another which, at one time, was equal to the other commodity.

For instance, corn and grain sorghum: As you know, at one time, they were on exactly the same parity. Today there is a big difference in parity itself on those two commodities, and certainly the farmer should be considered in the things that go to make up his cost as to what his share of the national dollar should be, and without

taking a lot of your time, I present those thoughts for your consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Wooten? Come forward. Will you sit here, please, sir, in the front row.

Mr. Hall, Sr.? Will you step forward, Mr. Hall, and take a front row seat here?

All right. Will you give your name in full and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF J. DONALD WOOTEN, CROSBYTON, TEX.

Mr. WOOTEN. I am J. Donald Wooten from Crosby County, and I appreciate the honor of being present here. I am a farmer from the Great Plains area of our State.

I represent no one but myself but believe that I express the views of the individual farmer who, like myself, receives all of his livelihood from the raising of wheat, cotton, grain sorghums and other small grains, as well as livestock.

I am against the sliding scale or multiple-price systems and I have never seen or talked to a farmer who was for them.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that in the whole of Texas or just your locality? Mr. WOOTEN. Sir?

The CHAIRMAN. Is that in your locality?

Mr. WOOTEN. Yes, sir.

I have talked to many of them who say they favor strict production controls and the 100 percent of parity that the Republican Party's standard bearer and leader promised in his campaign talks. I am for 100 percent of parity for basic and nonbasic commodities including livestock, coupled with strict production controls.

I believe that parity should be determined so that the farm income is comparable to that of people engaged in other gainful employment and that all commodities should receive equal treatment. The basis for computing parity should continue as it now is.

The sliding scale apostles are, in reality, asking us in agriculture to be the only ones in our national economy forced to take less than full value for our labors and commodities. This formula for price supports is very little protection in time of abundance. All history has shown us that the cheaper a commodity is the more of that commodity is produced, therefore for the national best interest there should be a floor level below which farm prices cannot fall.

Heretofore, we farmers have had great faith and confidence in the United States Department of Agriculture. It has always been the farmer's friend and has protected and furthered our interest in every way. Now we are confused and disheartened to find our interests submerged in a campaign for lower farm prices. We want the farm program to be operated for and by farmers for the best interest of farmers and with sympathetic understanding and cooperation from the United States Department of Agriculture.

If the Department of Agriculture is to represent the farmers of our Nation it is high time that the Secretary of Agriculture's advisory committees be composed of men who are actively engaged in agriculture instead of having the roster of these committees read like Who's Who in the industries which manufacture, process, pack, and finance agricultural products. The present advisors represent these indus

tries which for generations have endeavored to buy the farmers' products at the lowest possible price in order to guarantee to themselves the greatest margin of profit—and this profit is greatest when farm prices are the lowest.

That there is a farm depression now can hardly be denied with farm. prices having dropped to about 84 percent of parity. The great difficulty is and always has been in the fact that our farm products have been forced to compete on the world market while the products which we need to operate our farms are purchased from a protected, domestic market. This has placed us in a position of having to "sell low and buy high." This is the exact reverse of the success theory, to buy low and sell high.

It was through the legislation of the 1930's that the farm program was established so as to bring the income of the American farmer up to where it approached a fair share of the national income. The continual sniping at these programs has finally resulted in a situation where the farm income is again sliding backward and at a rapid rate. In the past when farm income was allowed to drop and continued on a lower trend it resulted in an overall economic depression. If we have another depression in this country it will be manmade because we have the know-how to avoid it.

To those who preach against a farm program and who get great pleasure out of calling them farm subsidies, I want to say this: The farmers don't bankrupt countries, they build them.

I would like to make the following specific recommendations:

First, the least that can be done now as an emergency measure is the restoration of 90 percent of parity, with the immediate repeal of the Agricultural Act of 1949 with its price-flexing provisions. This emergency measure should later be replaced with 100 percent of parity.

Second, there is a great need for an immediate strengthened and liberalized farm-credit policy such as long-term, low-interest-rate loans.

Third, I recommend strict acreage and allotment controls with retired or idle acres coupled with a greatly enhanced soil-building and conservation program on our farms and ranches.

Fourth, administratively, the "must" of any successful farm program is that each and every acre of any and all farms retain its individual history for allotments; that the past and future combinations of separately operated farms by its owner or operator be specifically limited to the very likeness of the soil, equal productivity, and the exact sameness of any and all conditions.

The present practice of allowing combinations by its owner-operator of any and all types of farms in a county or political subdivision is the greatest failure of the farm program today. This practice, which frequently sees allotment acreage moved miles within a political subdivision, has led to the purchasing of submarginal lands and stripping them of their allotments by moving them to a more highly favorable producing area of the county. This practice of transferral of allotments defeats the purpose of any farm program.

Fifth, and in conclusion, I would recommend that price-support benefits to any one operator be limited to $50,000 gross for any 1 year. Thank you, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

All right. Mr. Tendle? Give us your name in full and your occupation, please.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM TENDLE, KRUM, TEX.

Mr. TENDLE. I am Billy Tendle, Krum, Tex. I am 28 years old, and married and have 2 children.

I have been farming for 7 years.

I farmed from 575 to 1,000 acres, principally wheat, oats, cotton; I have 14 head of white-faced cows and, gentlemen, it is awfully hard to make ends meet, much less show a profit.

First of all, let me say I think the sliding scale should be repealed. We are not wanting something for nothing, but we feel that it is unfair to cut the prices of what we have to sell while everything else is going up.

Most farmers are operating on credit or dipping into their savings

now.

It seems to me that Mr. Benson's idea of doing away with the surplus is to do away with the small farmer; and I think that the small farmer has as much right as a large commercialized farmer. In other words, when prices are cut, volume is the only answer to show a profit, and how can volume help the surplus problem?

Our equipment and parts have just recently gone up 7.5 percent. Groceries we have to purchase are up; clothing is up; the price of gasoline is up. I need not tell you at this rate that we farmers cannot last long, especially farmers like myself who have gone in debt to buy their equipment.

The thing to do away with some of the surplus is we should work out some kind of trade with foreign countries that need food and fiber.

We could improve our school-lunch fund, for instance; the porkbuying program of Mr. Benson, of buying the meat from the packer, how is that going to benefit the producer? It seems to me that the packer will be benefited and the producer the loser.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. TENDLE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hall.

Is Mr. Osborne present? All right, sir.

Mr. Peeler? All right; just step forward when I call you.
Mr. Latiner? Mr. James, Guy James, is he present?

Is Mr. Merritt present? I am informed he went home; I am sorry. Mr. Chester January? Mr. Tom Spalding? Is he present? All right, step forward, Mr. Spalding.

All right; proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF W. T. HALL, SR., DENTON, TEX.

Mr. HALL. Your Honor, I am W. T. Hall, an ex-cotton farmer, a small-grain farmer, a very small beef-cattle producer, primarily a dairyman.

I helped organize the North Texas Milk Producers Association, and of which I am on the executive board, and it was my pleasure 2 years ago this March to go to Washington. The greatest thrill I ever had was when I stood at the Dodge Hotel and viewed the Capitol, the

place where prices were set on the commodities I had been producing in my entire life.

My sympathy goes out to you gentlemen who have this problem of helping us solve our prices.

I was disturbed when I did attend the Senate committee, I noted the indifference that some of the Senators had when they listened to the evidence. I wish that they all would have been as attentive as you have been here today.

The CHAIRMAN. You are very kind, sir.

You may proceed.

Mr. HALL. I see no need of the American dairy farmer being discriminated against in the price of his commodity cut when all other parts of our economic system continue to rise. You cannot have a balanced economy and discriminate against labor, industry, or agriculture.

Look at General Motors, the steel industry, labor, or any other segment of our economy; I ask you, are they cut to 68 or 75 percent of parity? On the contrary, can you name one that is less than 100 percent?

If all agriculture were stopped today, could our country exist 1 year, not to say anything about the millions starving in other lands? I believe we have a comfortable reserve and not a surplus.

Look at the dairymen, of which I am one. I came from the dairy barn to attend this meeting. The dairy farmer is tired of the Secretary of Agriculture making a guinea pig of him on his exports.

What happened to the surplus on butter and cheese? Was it not sold by the processor to the Government, bought back by the processor at a considerably less price, and it never left his warehouse?

I think you will find that happened right here in Fort Worth. If the press told the consuming public, "Under the direction of the Secretary, look what we are doing to the dairymen."

Gentlemen, the farmers of America are proud of their heritage and their independence. We are not begging. We want nothing more given to us, only a chance to compete with other phases of our Nation. When we sell a dollar's worth of a product, we, in turn, buy an equal value of other products.

I have $200,000 invested in land, cows, and equipment. I employ 2 full-time men.

I think industry on that figure requires about 14 men. For the last 4 years I have not been able to make 3 percent on my investment, not counting any salary for myself.

Do we want to repeat the 1920's? I do not think that we can continue to exist on 60 to 75 percent of parity.

Give us freedom and liberty as American citizens; give us a 100percent parity.

I would like to comment on 1 or 2 remarks that you have asked of some of the other witnesses. I do not think that any farmer should expect to get a premium for inequality produced regardless of what commodity it might be.

I think one of the things that has flooded the beef industry in my part of the State I know that every banker, every lawyer, every druggist, or car dealer who could lease or buy a piece of land, went into the cattle business. I think that is your primary reason for the great surplus, if we have a surplus of cattle.