The CHAIRMAN. Is there anybody else I overlooked? If not, will adjourn the meeting, and we will stand in recess until

I

Mr. CONNOR. I would like you to take note of the social advancement we are making today when we get a doctor to sit up there and talk for us as long as he did. In other words, I appreciate some of the statements the man made. And I would like personally to give him a hand. In other words, we need more people today taking the farmer's stand and taking the trouble to understand his problems. That is all I would like to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

If there are no further witnesses, the committee

Dr. NICHOLS. May I make one comment to his statement? My business is medicine. I do not believe we will ever solve the problem of metabolic disease in America until we once more restore the fertility to the soil.

I think that poor land grows poor food and makes people who are sick. I do not think we will cure coronary thrombosis, cancer, or anything lik that, any of those things, until we restore the fertility of

the soil.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to thank all of you, thank you for your patience in staying with me.

The committee will now stand in recess to meet in Hutchinson, Kans., Monday morning, at 9 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 5:45 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 9 a. m., Monday, November 7, 1955, at Hutchinson, Kans.) (Additional statements filed for the record are as follows:)

Hon. Judge PICKETT,

Karnes City, Tex.

KARNES CITY, TEX., November 2, 1955.

DEAR JUDGE: I understand you are going to a cotton acreage allotment meeting in Fort Worth, Tex. I'm sorry that I cannot go with you.

Judge, I'm glad you take time and effort to help to keep this county from going bankrupt.

In the first year of the 1930's county planted from 98,000 to 100,000 acres in cotton, and now we are cut to 34,000 acres; only 13 percent of the cultivated land. In 1930 I think there were 22 cotton gins in the country and now only 12 or 13 gins left and they cannot make a living from ginning cotton. Why shall we be cut to only 13 percent? Were west Texas and the valley to plant from 40 to 60 percent or better, and Karnes County and surrounding counties only can raise 1 bale from 4 to 5 acres, and west Texas and valley raise 1 to 2 bales per acre.

Why not put all the cultivated land on an even basis, say 35 or 40 percent all over the Nation. And if I don't want to plant any cotton this year, fine. But if I do want to plant 2 years from now then I can still plant my 40 percent if I want to.

Let's have a free country once more; and not be dictated. The way it is now farmers have to plant and also cannot plant. If he overplants he gets penalized and if don't plant then they take it all away. It's got to change from the way it is now, because if we have to reduce our cotton some more, we just as well say goodby.

In 1953 I went to the PMA office at that time-now ASC office and asked if 1953 cotton acreage be figured in for 1954 and 1955 cotton allotments; and the answer I got was "No," and asked us to reduce voluntarily so we wouldn't have overproduction.

And now I am suffering, because I took their word for it. So I wish you good luck at the meeting.

Yours truly,

A. F. AHRENS.

STATEMENT FILED BY W. R. BAILEY, FORT WORTH, TEX.

In case of disaster Uncle Sam rightly goes to the rescue. He gives sometimes as in the hurricanes and the worst drought sections but if the drought is not too bad he lends money only. Fine.

Why not apply the same principle to supporting crops? Figures are illustrative only. Support cotton at 60 percent of parity then farmers will not overplant. Benson's flexible support plan failed because it was too high and farmers could go on and make a fine profit. America's industries are the greatest in the world because of free enterprise and competition. But the present cotton plan eliminates competition, we cannot compete with other countries for the world market. We not only hold the umbrella over Mexico and other cottongrowing countries but also over the poor billionaire Du Ponts and their synthetics. "What fools we mortals be."

Let's never forget that the Government is the people and the people are the Government and one who leans on the Government is leaning on himself and soon great will be the fall thereof, witness France where everything is subsidized and they are on the way out.

Since soil and water are our greatest national assets, some kind of soil bank will be good. In Oklahoma the United States gave up to $100 at $1 per acre for subsoiling. Fine.

Years back in California every raisin grower was for self and the devil take hindmost and the bad boy got them with 12 cents a pound raisins. It was cooperate or else. They did and have the greatest raisin business in the world. Farmers' problems will not be solved till they cooperate. Two, three, or four small farmers can cooperate and buy Harber's kind of equipment and lower cost to compete with the world. Harber can make a profit on 27-cent cotton. Milk is much of a sectional problem but the United States should raise class III price at once.

EARTH, TEX., October 15, 1955.

Mr. JOHN WHITE,

Texas Committee of Agriculture,

Austin, Tex.

DEAR SIR: In regard to the agricultural meeting in Fort Worth. I would like very much to testify in person, but will be unable to attend. I am taking this chance to express my opinion as to our farm program. I am definitely against the sliding-scale price-support program for farm products.

I believe all farm products should be supported so the farm people would obtain 100 percent of a fair price. Farm products receive a very small percentage of all subsidy money spent.

Yours truly,

FLOYD B. BILLS.

CANYON, TEX., October 18, 1955.

DEAR MR. WHITE: Please use your influence in getting grain sorghum declared a basic commodity.

Grain sorghum is the only sure money crop in the Panhandle for farmers. With the price cut, farmers cannot make expenses, let alone make land payments and a living for their families.

Please try and help us.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

ED BOURN AND SON.

MATADOR, TEX., October 22, 1955.

Hon. JOHN C. WHITE,

Texas Department of Agriculture, Austin, Tex.

DEAR MR. WHITE: I am Archie Brawley of Afton, Tex. I farm 166 acres in Dickens County.

I believe that every piece of land, every farm, should carry its own acreage of cotton allotment. In the past, farmers, who were able to do so, would buy up smaller acreages and move the cotton allotment to some other piece of land which was watered. This tended to produce more instead of less cotton. Also, I believe that each farm should be required to rotate the acreages of cotton with

feed and with a soil building cover crop; one-third of the land to cotton, onethird to feed and one-third out of commercial production unless there is a shortage of some crop which could be planted on this one-third of the land.

I believe that there should be a high tariff on beef and beef products shipped into this country. The revenue from such tariff to be used as a subsidy to ranchers here.

Sincerely,

ARCHIE BRAWLEY.

Hon. JOHN C. WHITE,

SILVERTON, TEX., October 21, 1955.

Commissioner of Agriculture, Austin, Tex.

DEAR SIR: Will you kindly present my views to the Ellender committee when they visit Texas. If parity is a fair yardstick for all concerned then we should not be satisfied with less than 100 percent and put forth a greater effort to barter and trade and exchange our products to the extent we will accept allotments and incentive payments- but not cross compliance. In a Christian nation it should not be necessary to make food and fiber scarce and people hungry in order to force up the price justly due us for our efforts and investment. Sincerely,

R. E. BROOKSHIER.

STATEMENT FILED BY J. C. BURLESON, WHITEFLAT, TEX.

I have been asked to give a brief summary of my operations for the past 5 years, 1950-54 inclusive. In partnership with my son, W. E. Burleson, we own and operate a 17,000-acre ranch, known as the Mott, located in Motley and Floyd Counties, Tex. In connection with our ranch operations, we run between 600 and 700 head of mother cows. In addition to the partnership operation of the ranch, I own and operate approximately 3,500 acres of other ranchland and own and operate approximately 1,381 acres of cultivated land which is devoted to farming.

In 1950, I had a net income of $15,333.76; in 1951 my net income was $30,952.56; in 1952 my net income was $31,293.10; in 1953 my operations showed a net loss of $716.20; in 1954 my operations showed a net loss of $3,716.20. There was no change in my operations during this period of years. By that, I mean that we endeavored to operate economically. I attribute the decline in our income,

varying from a net income of over $30,000 in 1952 to a net loss of almost $4,000 in 1954 to the declining price of cattle and farm products and the increase in the price of machinery and other items which we had to buy in connection with our operations. The drought which we have had in this country has, of course, been a factor, but I honestly believe that if cattle prices and farm prices had remained in line with the price of machinery, feed and other things that we had to buy, we could have shown a profit in our operations in spite of the drought.

Hon. JOHN C. WHITE,

Commissioner of Agriculture.

LANCASTER, CALIF., October 25, 1955.

DEAR SIR: Being a Texan of 67 years and being reared on the farm, I am deeply concerned as to bettering conditions of the small farmer. The present setup of crop control discriminates against the small farmer, and by so doing is not only driving the boys but many of the parents to the towns and cities. By so doing, the backbone of Nation is broken. It is he who has a community interest, not the big farmer that uses hired help and farms hundreds of acres whose sole interest is profit.

I was farming in early days of controls; just on small scale, trying to make a living for my family. So when I got same cut as the hundred-acre fellows, I was forced to resort to other means of making a living.

I wrote Secretary Benson that the only just way was to allow a maximum of any one crop and make the cut above that. No one can claim or hold the small farmer responsible for surplus of farm products. Then why make him the goat?

I think it's time those in power use some commonsense, and not so much theory.

Yours truly,

O. W. CARTER, Dublin, Tex. CANYON, TEX., October 26, 1955.

Hon. JOHN C. WHITE,

Commissioner of Agriculture, Austin, Tex.

DEAR SIR: The probability that price support for grain sorghums might be withdrawn entirely has caused grave concern in this area. The reductions of the past year have cut us to the bone. We can see no reason for discrimination between maize growers and corn growers.

In this area, the production of maize has become a large part of our economy. We grow almost no cotton, and wheat production has been almost nil the past few years. Maize is about the only remaining cash crop we have to fall back You can see what maize production means to us.

on.

In coming discussions and legislation, we shall appreciate your every effort to protect our interests. If price support means acreage control, let us have it. Yours very truly,

E. R. CLEAVINGER.

STATEMENT FILED BY BOB COLE, DENTON COUNTY, TEX.

The farmers in my area are very disturbed with the present farm program and that we feel the plan of the soil-bank plan concerning overall acreage production would be very beneficial at this time, that the freedom for the individual to choose what to plant without having an overabundance of interference from agricultural committees in our county. The group of farmers I represent think it folly that the politicians play on the farmers with the idea of increasing farm income by restoring support prices to the rigid 90 percent and not advising them that they will have to receive acreage controls at the same time. This is a gimmick of acreage controls when surpluses are bountiful that eliminates additional income to the farmer because productive acres are restricted and gross income declines as net cost increases. The soil-bank plan would allow freedom yet would accomplish the job of assisting in solving this farming problem, as it deals with all farm commodities together rather than individual crops and acres.

STATEMENT FILED BY MRS. JUD COLLIER, MUMFORD, TEX.

Thanks for giving the "man on the farm" a chance to be heard in this our greatest economic crisis. Let's face facts.

The farm problem in its present form is a problem of American poverty since most American poverty is on the farm. The hardest hit victims of sliding-scale philosophy are the young farmers and their families. The older farmers of us who have paid off our debts operate at a loss but manage to dig in our savings and hang on. Yes, it is the beginners, our young men whom the Nation needs most to encourage and keep on the farms, who are being plowed under by the Republican planned policy of ruin.

The prosperity that is everywhere except in agriculture continues at a booming recordbreaking rate. Corporation profits after taxes were $16.1 billion in 1952. Now they're estimated at a yearly rate of $21.1 billion. In 1952 the net income of all farmers was $14.3 billion. At the same time the farmer's debt jumped 10 percent in the past year. In the meantime the Agriculture Department announced it lost $799 million in disposing of surplus farm products in the last fiscal year as of June 30. Uncle Sam still had over $7 billion tied up in price-support operations on which storage charges alone amounted to $967,000 a day. Yes, the farm program cost as much in 1953-54 under the Republicans as it cost in 1933-52. Poor business. Just think of the hungry in other lands as well as in ours.

Let's look at the cause of this. The farmer's products have always been forced to compete on the world market while the products which he needs to operate on his farm were purchased by him from protected domestic market. He has had to sell low and buy high.

Hence we see subsidy 1, the tariff.

2. Subsidy for United States airlines this fiscal year would be $48,500,000. 3. Tax amortization: a corporation can charge off the cost of new plants and equipment in 5 years instead of 20.

4. Franchise subsidy.

5. Bank subsidy: Government guarantees cash money on CCC loans.

6. Oil subsidy 271⁄2 percent deductible.

Mr. Chairman, since it is immoral for the farmer to be granted subsidy, please clarify to the world that the policy of subsidy has been a policy of the United States since the beginning of time. Yes, take away subsidies from all enterprises before attacking and then we can have free enterprise.

THE FARMER: SOLUTION OF THE FARM CRISIS

1. Support prices of basic commodities and other major farm commodities at full parity.

2. Abandon Benson's flexible support policy now in effect.

3. Protect the family-sized farm operation.

4. Give production payment to farmers directly, the difference between average market prices and parity prices for milk, eggs, beef, hogs, cattle, and chickens and other perishable commodities.

5. Uncle Sam rent the farmer's surplus acreage, taking it out of cash crops and putting it in soil-building crops with direct payments to the farmer.

6. Expanding consumption by increasing funds for school-lunch program and a food-stamp plan to provide adequate diet for needy people.

Hon. JOHN C. WHITE,

Austin, Tex.

ODEM, TEX., September 17, 1955.

DEAR SIR: It will be impossible for me to attend the cotton meeting with Senator Ellender this autumn. I am quite certain you will be there and heard from according to the press. Recently a man of note from Texas spoke to the western cotton people and stated that our export market will be lost completely unless something is done quickly. We deserve a better deal than we have in prospect.

I am strongly in favor of the two-price system. We deserve 100 percent parity for our domestic consumption and then let the other go at world prices. It would require import duties on finished goods to protect our millowners and operators, and a lot of other details to work out.

We are buying our machinery, medical servies, cars, and practically all else on a union-scale basis, which is way above the world average. If I could be protected on a guaranty for say two-thirds of my crop I would be willing to compete with peon labor to produce the other one-third.

I own between $15,000 to $20,000 in farming equipment and the greater portion is adapted to cotton production only. None of us in the cotton production can go on reducing our acreages every year and still operate.

I believe Congress should be called in session to work out something for the 1956 crop in the way of moving our surplus.

Yours truly,

O. A. EHLERS.

VIGO PARK, TEX., October 21, 1955.

JOHN C. WHITE,

Commissioner of Agriculture, Austin, Tex.

DEAR SIR: We do not believe that farmers are better than any other class, profession, or trade; but we do think we as farmers should have 100 percent parity for our products.

Yours truly,

GILBERT A. ELMS.