carry out soil-building practices on those acres diverted from different allotted commodities. It would also conserve the land for future generations as the increase in population definitely shows that something must be done to conserve the soil or some day our country will be overpopulated for the cropland we have today. Our cropland is depleting very fast. This needs much study, not later but today. Another item that would be of great help to farmers would be to loosen credit, make longer term loans and to set it up where, in case of drought, or other things which would hinder crops that farmers would not be condemned but given another boost to assure them that their machinery and other holdings would not be in danger of foreclosure. The costs of farm operations of today, with the prices of machinery increasing are definitely out of line with the prices received for the different commodities grown. In years gone by, where the only requirement for farming was one team and a few farming implements the cost was much less for operations. Just an item on dairy products which happened in this county was a farmer who was milking about 24 head of cows. His income on this 24 head after the sliding scale was put into effect was reduced $6 per day. This is an illustration as just what sliding scales has done for the farmers in this county.

STATEMENT FILED BY SAM BROOKOVER, EUREKA, KANS.

(1) Return agriculture to farm people.

(2) A nonpartisan problem.

(3) Build program to protect family-type farm; discourage city suitcase farmers.

(4) Neither rigid nor flexible support prices programs will solve present situation.

(5) Government play fair and remove farm surpluses.

(6) Build soil bank theory to encourage family-type farmers instead of city investments interests.

(7) Less Government controls allow farmer to plant grain for consumption of livestock on his own farm.

(8) What has become of cornfed beef? Grain all locked up in Government bins.

STATEMENT FILED BY O. R. CALDWELL, EMPORIA, KANS.

I had hoped to attend your hearing, but feeding a bunch of cattle keeps me at home, so I am writing to express some of my ideas. Because of price declines these cattle will probably lose money. These are the cattle which the national farm organization says you should support at 30 cents per pound. If you did this we would all try to feed twice as many cattle and there would be some people who could not afford to eat the meat. The best thing about the cattle business is that this is one thing that the Government is not trying to tinker with.

I would like to call to your attention three things which I think are basic to the consideration of any sound agricultural legislation. Only in recent years have these points received any serious consideration, and in some instances they are not yet recognized as basic.

(1) There are too many people trying to make a living at this business of farming. The demand for food has not kept up with more efficient production. This is one of the factors which is responsible for our surpluses. The increased use of power machinery means that each man can operate a larger acreage, and as a consequence the number of farms is declining. The family type farm is growing larger. This is a natural tendency and we must expect that it will continue. Too much of the farm income has to be divided with nonfarm people. Too many of our farms are owned by doctors, lawyers, and politicians. Too many business people and industrial workers are taking up farming in the time which their short work week allows.

(2) Too much emphasis has been placed upon the prices which farmers receive for a commodity and the support of these prices by the Government. Often overlooked is the fact that price is but one of several factors which make for profitable farm operation. Price without volume is just no good. It would not be possible to get the price high enough to satisfy marginal producers. High price supports are one of the big causes of our mounting stocks of unused food commodities. It encourages production and it discourages consumption. Support

prices of any kind disrupt the normal functioning of supply and demand. When any commodity is continuously supported over a period of years, then the amount of that commodity produced will probably be all out of proportion to the need for it. It just does not make sense for the Government to be bribing the farmers with high support prices, to produce a commodity which nobody wants. The only satisfactory guide to the production of any commodity will always be the price in a free and competitive market. I believe that price supports should be used only to prevent sudden or violent breaks in the market and should not be used to continuously keep the price above what the market demands will justify.

(3) We have entirely too many Government farm programs, too many farmers are becoming increasingly dependent upon Government subsidies, and too many Government restrictions are a hindrance to successful farm management. Since the days when Alexander Legge was called upon to establish the Federal Farm Board it has been popular to call upon the Federal Government to solve our problems. No government can be expected to guarantee prosperity to any class or group of citizens. Much farm legislation has caused more headaches than it has cured. The worst part of it is that so much political propaganda about farm problems has created a helpless attitude on the part of many farmers, and as farmers become more and more dependent upon Government bounty it plays directly into the hands of politicians who each try to outbid the other by offering more Government bounty.

As a general rule Government programs have worked to the disadvantage of the small farmers. They have tended to make the big farmers bigger and little farmers smaller. Government programs have encouraged waste at the expense of efficient production. Government programs have made liars out of many men who found that was what it took to get the biggest slice of Government favors. Now, I would like to come directly to the point and suggest three definite courses of action which the Congress should take if American agriculture is to remain strong.

(1) Discontinue production controls or acreage allotments of every kind. Farmers can generally overcome the adversities of drought and the ravages of insects, but when some edict from Washington has the effect of putting one's farm in a straitjacket, it just about has a fellow stumped. When a citizen can manage his own affairs only by the leave of his government, then we have slipped a long way from the kind of government which Abraham Lincoln envisioned at Gettysburg.

With a realistic approach to prices we could completely do away with production controls in 2 or 3 years, and any legislation should be leading to that end. (2) Price supports should be adjusted downward so that, except in cases of sudden or violent drops the price of any commodity would be determined by the supply and demand in the market place. Under such a system production would tend to go to the more efficient producers, and this would benefit both agriculture and the consuming public alike. That is the situation in the cattle indusry and cattle producers are much better off for it being so. Should you be interested in more details as to how this could be worked out, I would be glad to make suggestions.

(3) Finally, gentlemen, Congress should get behind Secretary Benson and give his programs your support. Mr. Benson is the first Secretary of Agriculture which we have had for a long time who insisted in putting the welfare of Americal agriculture above political expediency.

The ideas expressed here are strictly my own. I realize that they will meet with much opposition, but I do believe that in recent years an increasing number of farmers are taking this position. Thank you very much.

MEDICINE LODGE, KANS., November 4, 1955.

Hon. ANDREW F. SCHOEPPEL,

United States Sentator, Wichita, Kans.

Hon. FRANK CARLSON,

United States Senator, Concordia, Kans.

Hon. CLIFFORD HOPE,

United States Congressman, Garden City, Kans.

DEAR FRIENDS: I sat through the Republican "workshop" at Dodge City and enjoyed the program, including the rather heated discussion on the agricultural situation, and have come up with an idea.

to me that this wheat that we are raising today is any different than it was 10 years ago.

If a farmer or miller can get a hundred loaves of bread out of a bushel of wheat, why do we want to raise a bushel of wheat where he can get 200 loaves of bread out of it?

That is one thing. Now on this 1,030 million bushel surplus, if we were organized we would know and I will bet a thousand dollars if you will appoint 5 or 10 farmers in every county in the United States start in tomorrow and check every bushel of wheat there won't be 1,030 million of wheat in storage, whether hog feed or not. There won't be that many bushels.

We are whipped because we are not organized. In the dairy, the farmer has to do it himself. No Senator or President will do it. They have to do it themselves. Come the 1956 election both sides will promise a lot of things. You farmers should know it. We have been promised. With all due respect to you, you are doing the best you can for someone who won't help themselves.

Now, then, 1956 election comes along. We are going to be promised something. We won't know who to vote for because they will all promise us so many things. It won't do us any good.

Senator THYE. Will you tell us what we might do in the dairy field? The CHAIRMAN. First tell us about wheat.

Mr. CALDWELL. I am going to tell you-that is too long.

The CHAIRMAN. Give us your answer.

Mr. CALDWELL. That is too long. I sat here all day. I will write to you. I bet $10,000 I can put it out and it will work, 600 million bushels, and it is a conservative figure because I want to bet $10,000 on it.

As to the dairy situation, I will show you what is the matter. The biggest part is our own fault. How many farmers eat oleo? If we were organized and followed it through like, for instance, the Buick automobile people or Lipton Tea Co., or Revlon Lipstick, $64,000 question, we would follow it through. We are a manufacturer now. We have to follow it through and can't bring our wheat to town and find out what the elevator man will pay us. And you people can help us do that because you can't get 10 farmers to stick together.

You are doing all you can. There is no way in the world you can solve this situation or any other President or Senators.

On the dairy we go out here and not organized we sell our cream, we eat oleo, our own fault. If we was organized like other industries we would follow it through and buy ice cream. What do we get? Custard. If we were organized there would be so much cream in that pint of ice cream.

Senator THYE. What about your State law?

Mr. CALDWELL. What else?

You want to know about your eggs? The CHAIRMAN. With all due respect, you haven't said anything. You first wanted to bet $10,000.

Mr. CALDWELL. I will submit it to you.

Senator THYE. Submit it for the record.
Mr. CALDWELL. I will submit it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(The statement filed by Mr. Caldwell is as follows:)

As my plan will take care of the overproduction of beef, pork, chickens, eggs, dairy products, grain and above all wheat, I made the statement at Hutchinson hearing I could dispose of 600 million bushels more wheat the next 12 months than

was disposed of the last 12 months. When I say disposed of, I don't mean dumped in the ocean.

This plan or program will bring the farmer as good an income as he has ever had, even in good times, this will mean a big buying power for the farmer, that means jobs for the laborer. This added up is a large buying power for both labor and farmer equals prosperity in the United States.

All this I know will sound crazy as hell to you, but stop and think, we are in one hell of a crazy mess now in this farming problem, due to the fact you are dealing with the farmer, a group of people who are doing what dad did 100 years ago, this in 1955, they raise their products bring them to market take what they get for it, and set on their rump and howl waiting for the President to pull a rabbit out of his hat and give them prosperity, it is terribly hard to help some one who won't help themselves, therefore the Government will have to do it for them, but in my program they will pay for it, the same as labor pays his dues to the union for making his working conditions better, and the farmer will be happy to do so, with his income as it will be.

Now then as my program consists of all I have mentioned and more too— marketing, advertising, also the farmer and labor will be working together in harmony, which they should be, as you know now they are pretty much at one another's throat due to misunderstanding the other's situation. It is impossible for me to get down in writing and get it across to you my program, I can talk and explain it to you, let you ask questions, attack it from any angle you like, and I can prove to you it will work. If you and I live long enough to see this problem whipped, if and when it is ever done, by Republicians or Democrats, you will see it done along the line of my plan, I can have it in full swing in 30 days, at the end of 1 year the farmer wouldn't want it any other way. If you are interested in what I have to say would be glad to meet with you or any one else, any place any time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Arthur Hook.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR HOOK, POMONA, KANS.

Mr. Hook. My name is Arthur Hook. I live at Pomona, Kans., in Franklin County, or I did until a week or two ago. I had a sale October 3 and disposed of my personal property. I had lived on the farm 20 years. I bought it through the tenant-purchase program and the reason I decided to sell out was a statement that our Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Benson, made about 2 years ago in his address. He stated in his address that one-third of the little farmers has to go. He didn't say they ought to go, he said they had to go. Get off the farms and go to the factories.

Now in my estimation that was a greater threat made by a public official of that high standing, a greater threat to our democracy and our way of life than an attack on Pearl Harbor, and he didn't even draw headlines in the newspapers.

I heard one newspaper commentator take him up on it. Maybe there were more. I heard one. He repeated what Mr. Benson said and he made this remark: He said in Russia do you know what they call that? They call that collective farming, but in the United States this administration is calling that a great crusade.

Now in all due respect to you gentlemen, I believe Mr. Thye asked a question a while ago, I forget who was testifying. It was in regard to when that vast acreage in Colorado was broken out. You wondered why that was broken out at that time. I can answer that question. It was because of your present program. Now, here is a farm program that I have written to several editors and they have all printed it. This particular one I wrote to the Weekly Star Farmer. I started out with a few facts of our present farm program.

The CHAIRMAN. Give us a solution, please, and let the story go.

I am a farmer and stockman as well as a country lawyer and, like all good Republicans, am interested in the farm problem.

I know that each of you are familiar with the many complaints, and what you are looking for is a solution.

I have an idea that may not be new, but I have never heard it discussed, and it is so simple that it might work, be effective and yet satisfy the present complaints of the many different groups.

The idea is this:

Congress shall enact a law declaring that it shall be unlawful for any person to sell or any person to buy any agricultural commodity for domestic human consumption, traded in interstate commerce, at less than a flexible minimum price based on parity, to be specified for each such commodity.

Do away with parity payments, Government loans and acreage allotments. Get the Government out of farming except only to enforce a minimum price and to promote sound and efficient marketing systems.

I believe such act would be constitutional. (Refer to U. S. Supreme Court decisions on Agricultural Adjustment Acts; Fair Labor Standards Acts; and Fair Trade Act.)

Such act should

(1) Satisfy farmers who demand parity prices.

(2) Satisfy those who claim that the present subsidy program is socialism. (3) Eliminate double payment on the part of the consumers, whereby money raised through taxes supports farm prices through Government subsidy or loans thereby raising the price of farm commodities to the foodconsuming public.

(4) Automatically enforce acreage reduction by requiring minimum price only on commodities in amounts required for domestic human consumption, thereby allowing excess commodities to seek their own price level. (In this respect, it may be necessary to set bushel and pound allotments for domestic human consumption per farm per year in order to assure orderly and equitable marketing.)

(5) If bushel and pound allotments are set as above suggested, allow the farmer to carry over excess nonperishable commodities in his own storage from year to year and use them to fill his next year's allotment in the event of drought or crop failure, thereby alleviating problems such as created by this year's drought.

One additional problem in the event of the passage of such act would be the handling of present CCC stockpiled commodities and the commodities produced in 1955 that may be acquired by CCC. Perhaps this could be handled by requiring that such commodities be sold only on the export market under the present program or under some other export program. I do not believe that farmers under the suggested act would raise enough excess commodities to create an export problem. They cannot raise farm products profitably and sell them on the world market without Government assistance. Any Government assistance on farm commodity exports, beginning with the 1956 crop, should be eliminated. There would be other incidental problems, such as certain regulations applicable to commodity markets which would prevent profiteering resultant from passage of the act and perhaps should provide for trading on two classes of the various commodities, i. e., commodities for human consumption and commodities for livestock feed, etc., also regulations pertaining to handling of present privately stored commodities. But I believe such incidental problems could be worked out if the basic plan is good.

It would seem to me that the basic plan also could be applied to set up minimum prices for butcher hogs and cattle, thereby automatically stabilizing the price of stockers and feeders and other grades of livestock prior to reaching the butcher stage and also stabilizing prices on farm commodities used for livestock feeds.

The above suggestions might be worthy of further thought and study, and so I pass them on to you herewith.

Sincerely yours,

W. LUKE CHAPIN.