moved by whatever ships necessary to move these commodities. I feel that if any subsidizing of the merchant marine is necessary, that it should be done through Defense Deparement and not by the agricultural segment of our economy only.

I feel that our Government should do everything within their power to increase our sales for foreign countries and also trade for products which we must import that are not available in the United States.

I feel that all storage and other charges on existing Governmentowned agricultural commodities should be absorbed by the Commodity Credit Corporation and the 105 percent of support price barrier be removed, and that these commodities be priced at a price that would move them into foreign trade in an orderly manner.

We certainly do not want to lose sight of the fact that the farmers must have a guaranteed fixed parity price on all basic and nonbasic commodities when Commodity Credit Corporation-owned surpluses exist. I feel that this fixed price should be at least 90 percent of actual parity and not on the so-called modernized parity formula, which is to go into effect January 1.

If, we do not have this guaranteed fixed price, it will have a drastic downward effect on our Nation's economy.

As we all know, volume X price, times the price, minus our expenses, equals our income or our buying.

It appears that our expenses cannot be lowered, because such things as labor, franchises, shipping, and most other things that make up our expenses, are protected by government. Therefore, if our price received cannot be raised, then to keep a farmer or producer in business, we must have volume, and we know we are continually building up surpluses in some commodities, and therefore have to take a still further cut in acreage allotments, then it is going to have a very shocking effect on our Nation's economy, as the farmers that manage to remain farmers must increase overall acreage by squeezing out other farmers and forcing them into competition with labor and other segments of national economy.

When the farmer is squeezed off the farm and into industry, he leaves the rural area and by his absence forces rural merchants out of business, and forces him into competition with labor in industry.

I have two other things here that I would like to see a change in, in the wording in the ASC handbook, regarding cotton planting, where it now reads:

A strip of idle or fallow land less than four normal rows in width

be changed to read

less than two normal rows in width

would be counted as planted to the entire crop, and apply this to dry land only.

The CHAIRMAN. What effect would that have?

Mr. Moss. The present regulation allows us to plant 4 rows in and 4 rows out, across the farm. If we had 100 acres planted that way, it would be counted as 50 acres. We would like to plant the 2 rows in and the 2 rows out, and count the 50 acres and the 100 acres, because in certain areas you cannot comply with the 4-in-and-4-out provision because of the type of soil. It would not be good soil management to do it. It is a slight soil, and it would blow.

We can plant 2 rows in and 2 rows out and still protect ourselves. The CHAIRMAN. The idea would be to conserve your soil?

Mr. Moss. Yes, sir.

And also, it would tend to take 1 million acres or so out of grain sorghum production, that these boys are worrying about.

The CHAIRMAN. It will increase your cotton acreage, too?

Mr. Moss. Possibly 20 or 25 percent is our estimate.

The CHAIRMAN. Just a little bit, anyhow.

Mr. Moss. It would; yes, sir.

I would also like the definition of "diverted acres" changed. The definition as it is now in the law reads:

Those acres between history and planted acres.

I would like that changed to read:

The total number of diverted acres on any farm shall not be more than the total percentage of the national cut in such commodity that is being controlled by acreage allotments.

This definition of "diverted acres" should be used in any farm program whatsoever, written or enacted, in order to correct any and all inequities resulting on many farms, due to the irregularities in the acreage allotments of the past 2 years.

The CHAIRMAN. What effect would that have in increasing the acres?

Mr. Moss. Should the diverted-acres provision of the law go into effect, some farms would possibly have as much as 60 or 70 percent of their farm which would be classified as "diverted acres." We could not plant anything on them. And another one would not have maybe more than 3 or 4 percent of his farm go to diverted acres under the way it reads at present.

The CHAIRMAN. That is worth looking into. Thank you for your suggestion.

Mr. Jones?

STATEMENT OF DELWIN JONES, LUBBOCK, TEX.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I farm 360 acres of rented land. Everything that I have typed on that portion that I handed you has been thoroughly covered.

I have one penciled notation at the bottom, that we have come in here today with reference to retired acreage and what methods of payment should be made to the farmers for the retirement of this acreage. I would like to make this statement:

I feel that acreage leasing of retired acreage would create a hardship for tenant farmers, in that the owners would tend to take possession of the retired acreage and receive all lease money. Do you see the point there? In other words, in our area, there are some large landowners who have their land rented out at this time, but if we were to enact program, we will say, for example, of paying a man $10 per acre for his retired acreage, then this large landowner could very well move all of his tenants and take possession and retire that acreage, and then live very profitably for himself.

The CHAIRMAN. And get $10 an acre?

Mr. JONES. Yes. And that would force your tenant farmer off the farm.

One of our farmers made the statement here that our farm-subsidy program is a burden on the taxpayers. I would like to take exception to that, due to the fact, according to our national budget last year, agriculture only received 1 percent of the subsidies. Therefore, I do not feel that I should have it said that I am a burden on my fellow taxpayers when I am only getting 1 percent of that.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Hays?

STATEMENT OF MARION HAYS, BALLINGER, TEX.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am Marion Hays, of Ballinger, Runnels County, Tex. I am not a part-time farmer. All of my time is spent in farming. I own 1,500 acres, 540 of which is in cultivation. And besides this, I lease 100 additional acres.

Our area, on the eastern edge of the Edwards Plateau, is widely adapted to wheat, cotton, oats, and grain sorghum farming, also to sheep and cattle ranching.

Under the present farm program all five of these industries or enterprises have been adversely affected by our present farm program, in that huge surpluses have piled up in each of these industries and are steadily rising, much to the dilemma of the producer.

I think that it is the opinion of most farmers and ranchers in my area that so far the various farm programs have not been very successful in controlling productions and have done very little to maintain or restore fertility to our soil.

These programs have also been odious to producers with respect to rigid controls and the heavy cost of administration.

For these reasons we think much consideration should be given this Farm Bureau plan, or a plan that would operate efficiently with much more emphasis on maintaining soil fertility.

To that I would like to add something about the wool industry, since I am also interested in that in a moderate scale.

This year we have what is called the wool incentive program, that is, the difference in the average price that we receive for wool and the 90 percent of parity. I think it represents about 62 or 63 cents for wool; that is, that parity does.

I would like to give a few figures that I personally received for wool for the past 3 years prior to this year.

In 1952 I got $1 a pound for wool, which was very good. And in 1953, 65 cents; in 1954, 61 cents; and in 1955, when this incentive program went into effect, the wool market got stale. Not much wool has moved since.

There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in our area with this present wool program.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you must give it a chance to operate. You know how it will work?

Mr. HAYS. Yes, sir.

We understand that the surplus wool that the Commodity Credit Corporation, or whatever agency holds that, are marketing that in what they call an orderly manner now, and possibly that has some effect on the present wool market.

64440-56-pt. 4-28

The CHAIRMAN. It could not have any effect in the price you would receive, because under the law, as I understand it, a fair price is fixed in advance in order to encourage the production of a certain goal fixed in the bill. The difference between the fixed price and what you get is what you will obtain from the Treasury.

Mr. HAYS. There is another point in the wool and lamb program. I would like to point it out. That is, this advertising campaign that was launched. This was referred to the wool producers in the woolproducing States. It carried in all of the States, I think, except Texas and New Mexico.

This advertising, which I believe is 1 cent per pound that is withheld from the price of the wool-I have forgotten just what it isfrom the price of lamb. I do not know what that is.

Anyhow, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with that in Texas and New Mexico.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you suggesting any changes to the wool bill? Mr. HAYS. Well, I have never put wool in the loan. We have had a loan program on wool for years. The wool price has been substantially above the loan program.

The CHAIRMAN. Those who fostered the wool bill said it would be a cure for the entire wool industry. I hope it develops that way, although I did not support it, I want to be frank in saying.

Mr. HAYS. I think it should be given a fair chance before we try to repeal it.

I certainly thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Have you always lived in Texas?

Mr. HAYS. I was born in Texas; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You talk like a Virginian.
Mr. HAYS. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Mike Smith here?
Please take a seat.

STATEMENT OF MIKE O. SMITH, SABINAL, TEX.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I am Mike O. Smith, box 187, Sabinal, from Uvalde County.

In my opinion and the opinion of most of my neighbors, the primary cause of our depressed farm prices is: (1) Overproduction caused by rigid price support; (2) curtailment of export of such. Cotton, wool, and mohair is hurt to an untold amount by synthetic fabrics.

Our first thought should be to convert and improve our soil entrusted to us by our Maker.

America was built and grew on individual initiative, that we do not want to destroy or impair. By curtailing (cutting down) production as set out in the Farm Bureau's soil fertility bank program, I feel that we can take a great step forward to a more sound and more practical future.

The sooner we can learn how to stand on our own feet without Government aid and programs, the better off all of us will be.

Greed of individuals and companies is the primary reason that we have the above evils.

The State Department has, to a great extent, been the cause of our shutdown on exports and foreign trade.

Metals, strategic material of all kinds need not be stored, are not affected by rodents, weevils, or other parasites, do not deteriorate as food and fiber, so why not trade for such items as these that we can sometime in the future use.

There is something that would not have to be used immediately but it can be stored.

The CHAIRMAN. Many of us have suggested that but it has not materialized as yet.

Mr. SMITH. It is something that I think should be worked on more. The CHAIRMAN. I do not know how else to work on it, when you cannot get the Army to buy it in exchange. They want to use dollars. They do not like to go to the trouble of exchanging food for strategic materials. We have tried that.

On the other hand, as was stated here today, the great problem is that some countries will agree to buy our stuff, our surpluses, and we can ship there and accept their own money, but when we go to buy with that money the material that they have, we cannot do it. Mr. SMITH. There is no way that we can work around it?

The CHAIRMAN. To force it?

Mr. SMITH. No, you cannot force it.

The CHAIRMAN. I say, that is the point.

Mr. SMITH. Would there be money in one country

The CHAIRMAN. That could be used in another?

Mr. SMITH. That could be used in another?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you could, but the only trouble is that the United Kingdom is somewhat in control of that soft currency bloc. Mr. SMITH. Sterling is what they really want?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, that is right. In this sterling bloc the United Kingdom seems to have the upper hand. In the past, all of the sterling bloc countries owed money to England. They somewhat control them.

When we go to buy commodities that are virtually in the control of the British, such as tin and rubber and wool, produced in that area, why, we have got to use dollars to obtain it.

Mr. SMITH. It used to be gold.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sure, but all that has changed.

Mr. SMITH. Suppose we go into it with silver a little more.

The CHAIRMAN. Ah, now, you are getting into deep water. You ought to have Senator Thomas here now talking about silver.

Mr. SMITH. One thing, this metal will not deteriorate. We have all of this grain on hand that is deteriorating.

The CHAIRMAN. You would be surprised how much opposition you would meet from the producers of silver here in this State if you stockpiled silver in this country.

Mr. SMITH. Of course, silver is something that we use, not to a great extent, but our other metals, I think that we should try to conserve our raw materials as much as we can, possibly.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you. I would be for that. I have tried to foster such programs for the past 15 years, but I am sorry to say that we have never gotten anywhere with it.

Mr. SMITH. You are working in the right direction.