prise fashion taken advantage of this maladministration and expanded their acreage in the crops best adapted in their respective areas even though they violated the ideas of soil conservation and balanced farming. For instance, when there was no restriction on planting, native grass was broken up on land too rough for cultivation. In my area every acre was planted to wheat and resulted in an unfairly large wheat base later. Much of this land should have been terraced and frequently the native grass could have been used for terrace outlets. Such outlets are difficult to establish and in many cases negative results still prevail. Again, not all the money appropriated for school lunches was used. Not sufficient agricultural products were exchanged for foreign currency to reach the upper limit set by Congress. More food and feed could have been used abroad and actually improved our relations with other countries at less cost than armaments, if prices had been supported at upper limits rather than at the lowest levels permissible; if direct payments had been made to farmers on all products as in case of wool and sugar, especially in case of perishables. In other words we have not done the best with what we have. For this the administration must take the blame and not Benson alone.

Now there is room for improvement in our program and a Nation that can find experts to develop the atom bomb can also find experts to improve our agricultural program if it considers it sufficiently important. More suggestions would be brought forth if they were appreciated and used justly. I think the soil-conservation reserve or fertility bank would be a good addition to the pr sent program. Another proposition would be to provide feed for livestock in case of drought or flood more promptly and equitably. Also reasonable payments for failures in cash crops.

A plan to make surpluses available to the handicapped such as the aged with small incomes, the blind or crippled, perhaps the unemployed. The agricultural agencies such as the REA, RTA, SCS, ASC, Farm Credit, Extension Service, etc., should be maintained and improved. Especially since the average age of farmers is going up rapidly, about 52 years, credit should be provided so that qualified young people could buy a farm of sufficient size and equip it properly. The interest rate should not exceed 2 percent and the loans should be 5 years on equipment and livestock and up to 40 years on land and buildings depending on age of borrower. I know a number of those who acquired land under the tenent purchase program. They have been very successful and constitute a stable and desirable asset to our community. The assistance they received did not demoralize them but rather increased their aspiration and devotion. Only one developed a bad attitude and withdrew and caused little if any loss to the program.

The essential thing in the whole program is to set an upper limit on the amount of aid anyone can receive in a year. No one should become rich from tax money. This country is dedicated to the family-sized farm as indicated by limiting the amount of land that could be homesteaded. These upper limits might need adjusting from time to time. At present I favor a limit of $25,000 price-support loan which includes the total value. That is, the market price plus support or $5,000 direct payment which would be the difference between market price and parity. This limit to apply to any unit whether individual, corporation, or group of any kind. That any party claiming assistance must be an actual landowner or an on-the-farm operator to qualify. The reason for this definite limit is that as long as it is needed to give purchasing power to maintain the current high standard of living it is self-sustaining by stimulating business and employment. Profits beyond that generally are used to expand, which deprives another of the privilege of a farm home-the best place to raise good citizens for future America.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cooper.

STATEMENT OF CLINT M. COOPER, MCPHERSON, KANS.

Mr. COOPER. My name is Clint Cooper, and I am from McPherson, Kans. I am an employee of a co-op refinery and member of organized labor. You have something different here.

The CHAIRMAN. Does it have to do with farming?

Mr. COOPER. I am here to present our side for the farmer. We understand and realize that their problem is our problem. I wrote in for time and was granted time to appear on this program.

With your permission I would like to give our views on the farm program and I will make them short.

The CHAIRMAN. Anything new that hasn't been brought out today? Mr. COOPER. It is just our stand on the farm program.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean labor's stand?

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Let's hear what you have for a while, anyway. Mr. COOPER. No. 1, we consumers in labor recognize this great danger at hand because we know when farmers get hurt labor is next in line.

No. 2, I have heard quite a bit of conversation here today on wages of labor. Let me assure you gentlemen that our wages have been good but our living costs have come near to alltime high. I happen to be approving credit at our credit union at the refinery and I know the situation of laboring people and I want you to rest assured labor is not getting excess profits.

No. 3, we recognize the fact that prices paid to producers and price charged consumers is unfair. We feel too much profits get lost in the middle. We feel the farmer is on the short end.

No. 4, with this in mind, Mr. Chairman, we would like to go along, labor would like to go along with farmers on 90 percent of parity at this time and later a hundred percent parity for the simple reason that we know when they don't make it labor doesn't, either, and I sure thank you gentlemen for your time.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(Mr. Cooper's prepared statement follows:)

What I have to say on the subject in question here today cannot be isolated to the mere question of overproduction of the American farmer or underconsumption of the American people. We must consider the theory that in the United States our country is made great and strong by the social economic justice between the various groups which make up our whole economic structure. Of all groups in our economic structure if it were not for the farmer providing us with an abundance of food and byproducts for clothing we would have absolutely no use for the great industrial structure we now enjoy.

We would be reduced to a state of semi-involitary servitude, such as the people of numerous governments of the world today. We would be but a mass of degenerated human beings, at each others throats, fighting for the favors of a minority group of lords, who would have influence enough to be tolerated by the rulers of the military.

Yes, my friends we are headed down the road today if our lawmakers do not heed the signs before us and take action which will insure the farmer a rightful portion in our economic structure.

Let us examine the thory of our present-day farm program and compare it with the rules laid down by our lawmakers for other groups. I am from organized labor and I am willing to compare my lot with the lot of the farmers.

We have the benefit of a law which sets a minimum wage we are to receive when engaged in labor in interstate commerce. You peg our minimum wage at a concrete figure movable only by the lawmakers of our Nation. You passed this law because you realize the law of supply and demand in the labor market is only a myth and you realize our 60 million laboring forces will not stand being subjected to the whims of our powerful industrialist, also you realize with our present national debt you must keep a reasonable national income to keep our country from going bankrupt. Now our farmers income is subjected to a sliding minimum figure. You gave them a choice on wheat a few months ago. You told them either reduce your acreage or take no support program. You told them in effect to vote to reduce their annual income from wheat or be subjected to no support program at all and be at the mercy of the world's mythical supply and demand on wheat.

Under such circumstances you are not giving the farmer his just fair share of our national income. There seems to be a certain powerful group in our

Nation who are determined to reduced the number of families on our farms today.

They have the theory that our country would be better off if our farms were incorporated into a large cartel system such as the petroleum industry. It would be a safe bet to say that if and when this takes place the same people would wave the flag in many ways to keep the laborers they would employ to their advantage from becoming a part of our organized-labor system.

As chairman of the McPherson County Farmer-Labor Council I recommend: 1. We of organized labor want to make it clear at this hearing that the cost of the support of the farm program and the extra tax that we as consumers pay is a fair tax therefore we support 100 percent parity for the farmer.

2. Subscribe to the theory that the family-type farm is a must in a democratic form of government such as ours.

3. Determined that the average minimum income, the average farm family must receive in order to be able to live in dignity among his fellow countrymen. This must take into consideration the improvements a farmer must make in order to advance with the various procedures and techniques as accepted by industry.

4. After determining the average income a farmer must receive, pay his income to the basic commodities subscribing to the theory that if you must reduce the acreage on a commodity you must raise the price per unit on this particular commodity in order not to reduce the farmer's income.

To bring this report to a close the question comes up; what is right? Are we as good American citizens who are God-fearing people on the right road when we know millions of God's people are going without food, clothing, and proper shelter. And we are blessed with a so-called overproduction. They say we can't give this surplus away. We would upset the world's markets and depress prices. I firmly believe that in this great country when in time of war we can find leadership to band together and assemble the tools of war to kill great numbers of God's people; a solution to feed them in time of peace is also possible.

STATEMENT OF CARL HARTMAN, RICE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL GROUP, STERLING, KANS.

Mr. HARTMAN. I am Carl Hartman, Sterling, Kans., a farmer. I would like to ask you if you would be interested in the opinions and observations on the carrying out of the present farm program and suggestions from the Rice County agricultural group. Do you know what that is, I mean what an an agricultural group in Kansas is? It is composed of the various farm representatives from the various agencies of the Government such as PMA, and other farm organiza

tions.

We have been close to the administration of the farm program over a good many years and even at this later hour our observations might be helpful.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have anything that hasn't been offered this afternoon?

Mr. HARTMAN. We have, yes, an emphasis on

The CHAIRMAN. I don't want emphasis. I want something new, if you have it. I mean something to solve the problem. We have heard a lot of things by way of emphasis all afternoon and part of the evening. If you have anything new to offer I would like to have it, otherwise file your statement.

Mr. HARTMAN. We want to make one observation on the way the sliding scale works in our county, and this is unanimous by all organizations.

The alleged purpose of the sliding scale is to reduce acreage. No one in our group knows of any farmer who planted less than his allotted acreage due to the lower supports of 1955 and those announced

for 1956. That is concrete. It is by the people who are administering the program. We also wish to observe that the price of bread is just as high or higher than it was. We have this unanimous opinion which may be a little different from any and that is that we are going to have to take additional acreage cuts. We are willing to take additional acreage cuts.

The thing we are interested in is total income of the farmer. We are unanimously agreed that 100 percent of parity plus the farmbank program paying for some land taken out is essential if our farm plant in our area is to be maintained. We are in trouble, we are in bad shape. We are in a position where the average of the farms in south central Kansas, 104 in farm-management associations, these records are taken from the extension department who supervises farm records, the average of those farms, 586 acres, 426 acres in cultivation, 86,000 in round numbers investment managed and in 1954 they received just under $2,700, that average farmer for his labor and management.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. How much of that was due to the drought? Mr. HARTMAN. I will answer that by saying that the average yield in that 104 farms was 24.1 bushels that year, according to the Kansas State records.

We are in trouble. When we add the reduced acreage that farmer in 1954 had 104 acres of land in wheat, and now he has 88 acres. When we take into consideration the drop in the announced prices he will take for his wheat if he gets 24 bushels to the acre again in 1956, he will take $2,700, which will bring him down to nothing.

Is that enough for a farmer of that size? We are in trouble, gentlemen. Don't go back to Washington and think we are not in trouble. The CHAIRMAN. That is why we are here. We want a solution. We know the problem, I think.

Mr. HARTMAN. Our solution is, we think, it is important for the Government to realize that they can afford to spend to maintain the agricultural plant, not the acreage-bank plan or farm-bank plan, landbank plan alone. In addition to sliding scale, the parity.

Incidentally, parity under the new plan by 1958, I believe, will only be 85 percent of the old parity. We don't have much to look forward to.

I thank you.

(Mr. Hartman's prepared statement follows:)

I wish to give you some observations and opinions on the agricultural situation in south central Kansas, on the effect of present legislation on that situation and on what revised laws should be designed to accomplish. The statements which I shall make are not necessarily my own. They are observations and opinions which were mutually agreed upon by the farmer members of the Rice County agricultural group; therefore, I am giving you the benefit of the thinking of the men in our county who have, over a period of years, been most active in the local administration of Federal farm policies and who are, therefore, most familiar with farmer reactions.

How well off is the farmer in south central Kansas? To answer this question as accurately and impartially as possible, we respectfully quote from a Kansas State College supervised summary of the 1954 account books of 104 south central Kansas farmers who belong to the Farm-Management Association. Time permits us to give you only the highlights from the accounts of the average farmer among these 104 progressive farmers. This average farmer had, by all standards, an economic-sized unit. He farmed 585.9 acres, of which 426.6 acres was cropland, and he managed a total investment of $85,777.13. He was a general farmer with a little over half of his total gross income from livestock. During

1954, when the wheat allotment was based upon a national acreage of 62 million, he had 204.3 acres of wheat which yielded 24.1 bushels. What did this farmer, who managed an investment of nearly $86,000, receive in 1954 for his labor and management? The records show that he received only $2,698.74.

Those are starvation wages with no return for risk. However, considering his smaller allotment and the announced supports for 1956 this same farmer will sell $2,700 less wheat in 1956 than he received in 1954. This is providing he also has the rather high 24-bushel yield. With livestock prices off even more than wheat and with expenses up, he has no prospect of getting anything for his labor. Gentlemen, we are in trouble. The facts from our area reject the statement that "the agricultural economy is essentially sound." What is the local effect of the sliding scale? The alleged purpose of the sliding scale is to reduce acerages. No one in our group knows of any farmer who has planted less than his allotted acerage due to the lower supports of 1955 and those announced for 1956. We conclude that the sliding scale reduces the farmers' income. It does not reduce surpluses.

The price of bread is now as high or higher than in 1954. Assuming an equal and normal yield in 1955, which drought prevented, the farmer of our example would have taken about $1,650 less for wheat in 1955 than in 1954. The consumer paid as much for his bread. Where did the money go? Did it become excess profits, which are no longer taxed as such? Did it promote the national welfare to the same extent as if it had gone into the hands of the farmer?

The Rice County agricultural group is agreed:

1. The chances of any material increase in wheat exports are too remote to be relied upon. It is our observation that the United States State Department effectively opposes offering wheat at greatly reduced prices. We also note that wheat importing countries are unable to sell their products in the United States over our tariff barriers, and that, therefore, they have no dollars to purchase our wheat at any price.

2. We believe that a way must be found to bring our production in balance with domestic consumption and a very small export market. This will probably require an even smaller acreage than we are now allotted.

3. We must reduce our production of wheat, but we should not also be required to take less than full parity for the wheat which is needed for domestic consumption.

4. We recommend in addition to parity supports, and not as a substitute therefor, the soil bank plan of substantial financial aid to farmers who put and keep unused land in soil building crops. This serves a longtime national interest which the farmer is not able to bear alone.

STATEMENT OF J. C. CALDWELL, PRESTON, KANS.

Mr. CALDWELL. I am J. C. Caldwell. What I am going to say is I have a new plan.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine.

Mr. CALDWELL. I can tell you how to dispose of 600 million bushels of wheat in the next 12 months.

The CHAIRMAN. Good.

Mr. CALDWELL. I have $10,000 to back it up that I can do it of my own money. Now on this-I mean milling wheat has been kicked around-I used to buy grain and you talk about this here wheat, this milling wheat. Now, I will make this statement. If the farmer doesn't wake up in 3 more years like the last 3 years-we are broke today, three-fourths of us-in 3 more years we will know we are broke.

Now, organization as against unorganized people which we never could organize and maybe never will. In milling wheat-I know something about protein and gluten and if the farmer will wake up to this-this is the only thing I have against you boys, letting something like this go on. There is no one could make me believe and prove