In this way we can help other nations and help ourselves. A giveway plan helps no one, is not practical and not advisable except in case of an emergency or disaster.

We can go far in counteracting communism if we use the surpluses we now have in aiding or strengthening other nations.

America is a Christian and democratic nation. If we conduct ourselves and our policies as such, no isms will ever give us serious trouble. We should consider these surpluses as blessings and not as a burden. The only thing is to get them to the people and places where they are drastically needed.

That is without impairing the standard of living in those countries. I was in the World War. I covered several nations, and as soon as you have stepped out-you say that you have been thereyou noticed that one of our main problems is that our standard is so high above the rest of the world that it makes it a very complex deal all the way around for the American people. There are very few nations-none of them-with our standard of living, and very few that even come close to it. How we are going to raise them up to our standard, to get on a little closer plane on that, I do not know. Of course, we do not want to go down to their standard, but if labor and industry keeps getting more and more money, we are going to get into more and more trouble. I have never yet seen a dog chase his tail and catch it.

If and when legislation is passed to aid agriculture, the proper authorities should see that they get it, as intended: (1) a couple years ago a beef-buying program was passed. The slaughterhouses got full benefit from that; (2) then a disaster feed program came out, in the dought area; the first part was O. K., but when it was revised and we received $1 to apply to each hundredweight of grain, feed immediately went up that amount and more. Feed houses got the benefit; (3) now the wool program is in effect.

I was buying ground maize for $1.80. This program came in again. The next time I went back to get it, it cost me $2.80, and a little bit after that it was close to $3 and $3.10.

Legislation does a lot of very good things, but agriculture does not get the benefit from it.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish that you could do something about it, to cut this great sum of money that it seems to be costing us to handle these products, between the farm by the merchants and the proc

essors.

Mr. SMITH. It looks like-well, you would say the feed house is the processor, and was the one really getting it.

The CHAIRMAN. Somebody is getting it, not the farmer.

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

Who has the authority to administer that?

The CHAIRMAN. The thing is, would you want to fix the prices? Mr. SMITH. They were fixed.

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about this: Would you want to pass a law to fix the prices of everything that the storekeeper sells? Mr. SMITH. We know that on grain, I think they are buying it from the

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the only way to do that is by regimenting, and I know that you would not want that.

Mr. SMITH. We want freedom.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course you want freedom.

Mr. SMITH. Now, the wool program is in effect, and in Uvalde they were selling-we sold ours before this thing went into effect-wool was bringing from 50 to 60 cents a pound. Immediately just before that thing did go in, and when it did come in, they came down, and they were not buying at all. Finally, they offered 30 and 35 cents. A couple of houses did sell for 35 cents.

The CHAIRMAN. You know what will happen, your Government is going to pay the difference.

Mr. SMITH. That is what they were figuring.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what is going to happen.

Mr. SMITH. We take that 35, plus this incentive, that would put us back up to where we had been.

The CHAIRMAN. A lot of people are advocating the same program as to other commodities.

What that program has cost, as I pointed out here, would just be nothing compared to what it might cost if this method were to be put into effect, in my humble judgment. I may be wrong about that, but that is my personal judgment.

Mr. SMITH. Another thing that I am wondering about. We do know that grains can be converted into alcohol, which is used in the making of rubber and everything else, which is taking this grain that is depreciating in quality. It can be put into something that can be shipped or stored, that will take up less space and still be used for future use.

The CHAIRMAN. You know Mr. Garner?

Mr. SMITH. I use a little of his money.

The CHAIRMAN. If you see him, give him my warmest regards. Mr. SMITH. I will.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chambliss. Step forward, sir. You may proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF G. C. CHAMBLISS, SR., ANAHUAC, TEX.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Senator, my name is G. C. Chambliss, from Chambers County, Anahuac, Tex. I am a rice farmer.

The CHAIRMAN. Rice farmer?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. It seems to me that there are some things that Congress can do to help our farm situation. It is obvious to me that legislation is not the answer to all our problems, and that we do not want Congress answering all our problems. This fall representatives from rice-growing counties met in Rosenburg, Tex., and discussed our rice legislation in three meetings. Here are some of the troubles pointed out at these meetings:

1. The present system of grading rice is not uniform.

What we mean by that is where we have rice, especially on farm storages, we will take a grade of rice this week and send it to one of the ASC graders, and in 2 weeks from now we will take another sample

and take it to another one, and we will come up with several pounds more rice.

For instance, this fall I had 840 barrels of Texas pack. I sent it to the Houston grading office, and it would have brought me $9.32.

I left it in my storage about 2 weeks, and we discussed around among ourselves as farmers as to why they were getting more on different grades.

So when I went to make my application for my Commodity Credit loan I took my official sample and sent it to Beaumont, and that rice brought me $9.66.

No, that is concrete proof that your gradings-there is something wrong somewhere; I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. What was that difference, now?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The difference between $9.32

The CHAIRMAN. $9.32 and $9.66?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. $9.32 and $9.66. I believe it would have been 34 cents.

Another thing is the method of calculating this rice where we have rice in the storage on the farm, bulk storage. We have our rice dried at a dryer, and it is weighed. It comes out at 944 barrels, we will say. ASC is supposed to hold back 5 percent of that rice. They will not take your weight.

Now, our rice was weighed, another man's rice was weighed, was put into storage, and when we got his loan on it, rather than to be holding out 9 percent, there was approximately 13 percent.

Now, what we would like would be that where those scales are bonded, scales that are used for storing rice in the dryers and warehouses, we haul that rice to our dryer or to the farmer's dryer out on the farm, and why can't we use their weights, and ASC still hold out the 5 percent? Well, that is

The CHAIRMAN. That is an administrative matter.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. There is too much variation.

The CHAIRMAN. That can be corrected. All right.
Will you proceed?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Rice is not offered on the market at a competitive world price. Therefore, our 1955 rice is about 33 percent below the

1954.

The CHAIRMAN. If you offered it at the world price, would it not be lower? I have just returned from Thailand and Burma, and they have enough rice there to last them quite a while.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I should have said exports instead of price; I beg your pardon.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The maturity date on Commodity Credit loans should be not later than February 28.

The CHAIRMAN. What is it now? May?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. This year it had been set for March 16. Last year, I believe it was April 30.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Well, that is

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The reason the farmers would like to have that set on February 28, in our area, or in Texas, it should be a permanent date of February 28 is because there are a number of storages and dry

ers and things that are away from the railroads. Rice has to be transported, and it comes at a time, if you would take it from March 15 or March 16

The CHAIRMAN. You mean for the Government to acquire it; is that it?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Yes, sir; when the Government takes over the rice on the Commodity Credit loan.

Now, if we sell it on the open market, why, then, it moves whenever we sell it. But there has not been but very little of it sold that has been put on the Commodity Credit loan. Therefore, we would like, if it is possible, to make that a permanent date of February 28 for takeover day.

We would also suggest that the Congress use all the effort possible to try to get the Navy and the Army and those people to use more rice. It does not seem to us like, from the reports that come from the serviceboys that are raised in the rice area, they come back and they say they seldom ever have rice, but they have potatoes every morning for breakfast.

We would like to get our foot in the door on that. That would eliminate some of our surpluses.

It seems like we are going to have about at the end of this year from reports about 29 million barrels of surplus rice. That is above the approximate 48 million barrels that are consumed for local consumption and export.

I am wondering if it would not be possible in some way that we might set a minimum of 48 million barrels of rice, freeze this rice, this 29 million barrels of rice that we have on hand now, put it away where it will not be used for 10 years unless we had a calamity.

The CHAIRMAN. What would the bugs do with it, do you think? Mr. CHAMBLISS. Well, some old boy suggested that we ship it to the Arctic Circle.

The CHAIRMAN. How much would it cost?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I do not know what it would cost.

The CHAIRMAN. You would have to take it by airplane.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. It will probably not cost any more over a period.

of 10 years than to store it that long.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else you want to add?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I believe that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. Guenther?

Have a seat here, sir.

STATEMENT OF GUS GUENTHER, COUPLAND, TEX.

Mr. GUENTHER. Senator, I am just going to add a little to that. Time is running low, and I must compliment you on your patience and consideration. You are the first man I have seen sit through a meeting of this type after hours that long.

The CHAIRMAN. You tell that to the voters of Louisiana, will you? [Laughter.]

Mr. GUENTHER. I will do that.

I feel that as it stands now it looks like we might have to use the parity formula, and it has been misused and overadvertised to our disadvantage, and it will be in the future.

But it is my understanding that the airlines are being subsidized, of course under different names, the railroads, boats, and ships; the Navy from the west coast buys their tomatoes over here on the east coast, and the Army over here on the east coast or in the eastern part of the State, goes to the west coast to buy their tomatoes there.

If we could compute figures on this over the time that the farm program has been going on, and then receive our just share equally and use a different word than parity or subsidizing it, maybe we could relieve the present problem and work toward a different system there.

It is my feeling that as a farm grower it has gone through, it has cost money, but not in the extreme of what has been spent for other purposes that are harmful to us as the factories and technicians and machinery and labor that have been used in other countries, compared to our purpose here.

That is about all that I would add to this particular meeting.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. GUENTHER. Thank you.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Guenther follows:)

My thinking and that of my area is our first problem is to find markets for our surpluses, at home and abroad, to relieve our present problem.

It is my understanding that we have a trade agreement on exports. Why is it not used when the world as a whole is hungry and half clothed, and we are blessed with an abundance of food and fiber?

Is it not our Christian duty to help our fellow men if it is in our power? I feel that it is.

My thinking on the soil fertility bank, if properly administered, will not only reduce surpluses but will solve many of our present problems. We will retain our present mineral supply in our soil and add more for later use. At this very

time and day we have depleted our soil in some areas to the extent that it has weakened the bone and body structure of man and beast for lack of minerals in our soil. Our shallow wells are drying out for no other reason than lack of humus or soil condition as it may be called. Rain will fall on unconditioned soil and flow down the creek and rivers to the gulf and sea, when in reality it should filter through the soil to fill underground reservoirs for the welfare of the people as a whole.

Just how to solve all of our problems at this time I do not know, but I think we have enough smart men with past experience and all records that we have of past experiences, it should not be too hard to solve our problems.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Dr. Joe D. Nichols.

Will you give your name in full for the record and your occupation, please.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOE D. NICHOLS, SECRETARY, MARION-CASS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ATLANTA, TEX.

Dr. NICHOLS. I am Joe D. Nichols from Atlanta, Tex., in Cass County. I am an orthodox M. D. I own and operate a 25-bed hospital; I also have 1,000 acres of land on which I grow grass, pine trees, cattle, and vegetables.

I am chairman of the board of the National Atlanta Bank; I am secretary of the Marion-Cass Soil Conservation District; I am a director of the Texas State Soil Conservation; I am also president of Natural Food Associates which has its headquarters in Atlanta, Tex. The CHAIRMAN. You ought to be able to give us a solution of this problem with all that. Have you got it?

Dr. NICHOLS. Yes, sir; I think I do.