know that if the present crop should happen to fail that you would have some wheat to sell anyway to meet or help to meet your obligations. There is one thing for sure. Regardless of crop or product, a grower or producer would not build up a surplus of any commodity to where it would be an unbearable burden to himself. For as this case was mostly on wheat, the producer would try other crops in demand or short on account of crop failures. This program would eliminate marketing quotas and acreage controls which is one thing we as farmers do not want. This program would also give a sort of set figure which industry, labor, and capital could use as a guide. It would not tax the innocent to pay special privileges for the farmer. That is what I would call 90 percent parity of total of crop, especially when a commodity has reached a figure to where it is a burden to the Government. We as farmers do not want to be classified as a special-privilege group, nor do we care to cater to any other group so classified. We as farmers will produce, with the good help of Mother Nature, plenty or try very hard to do so. But we also want to be on parity with industry, labor, and capital, and equalized economy-by all, for all, with special privileges to none.

Surplus wheat. Keep all necessary amount of wheat for emergency uses in case of unseen causes. Offer balance for sale or trade to foreign markets for what-have-you base. Vote down acreage rental by all means. We cannot mortgage unborn future generations credit to pay for same. Above all let us keep our civil liberties.

STATEMENT FILED BY B. J. EVANS, WELLINGTON, KANS.

I am a farmer in Sumner County and have 400 acres in cultivation. I believe that the domestic parity plan as advocated by Representative Clifford Hope would be a fairer system to the wheat farmer. Many farms are unsuited to raise other crops than wheat on a profitable basis. This would give those farmers a chance to raise a little extra wheat for feed without being penalized. Of course the farmer with better land would probably not be interested in exceeding his allotment. The acreage allotments have failed mostly because we farm better and raise larger yields on our alloted acres. Consequently the surplus has not been diminished. A bushel allotment would hold the surplus to the desired level. I believe a set yield for a county would be the best way to administer the allotments. The farmer with the good land can raise other crops while the farmer with the thinner upland would have a chance to make a living. Also I believe the farmer who has not plowed up his pasture and the ones who have kept up shelter belts, etc., should get some credit on his allotment for his conservation practices.

STATEMENT FILED BY C. W. FEARING, BURR OAK, KANS.

I thank God that I have the privilege to live in a country where I am free to say what I think.

I was born in America. I love it and hope to preserve the freedoms I have had, and more for my children. I appreciate the opportunities I have had and I know future generations cannot have opportunities unless they are free.

Today we in agriculture are losing some of those freedoms. We know now that supports cannot be had without controls. We know that high rigid price supports are not the answer. On every commodity that we have had those supports, we are now in trouble. We have been sleeping, so to speak, at the Government bin. We have been producing to sell to the Government without thought of quality or demand. On some commodities we could take a year's vacation and not want.

There is no substitute for actual supply and demand.

As I see it, war and Government planning have led us to where we are. What shall we do?

The recent headlined soil-bank plan has not been tried, could be far reaching, could be felt by almost everyone in this country. It could solve one of our pressing problems in the country today; the water problem.

Here I refer to a recent editorial in the Saturday Evening Post. Dr. A. L. Lugn, professor of geology in the University of Nebraska, has revealed that, the ground in his State has the incredibly enormous water storage capacity of 97 million

64440-56-pt. 5—12

acre-feet, which is equivalent to 10 years' average rainfall, or it would take 1,000 big surface reservoirs to equal such capacity.

Ground storage for oil and natural gas is a common practice but for some reason the parallel storage of water is virtually ignored. Results are being achieved. Land utilization is being managed so that the soil and water are conserved. That would be a soil bank. For example, the town of Clinton, Okla., during the recent drought years, obtained virtually enough water for its municipal supplies from a 10-square-mile creek watershed that had been given thorough soil and water conservation treatment. The water came out of a multitude of springs produced by insoak of rainfall in previous wet years. Clinton is marked on the map as 5,000 to 10,000 population.

A soil-bank plan would not work if you persist in opening new irrigation lands. If it were to work, rental payments would have to be big enough so that the owner's income would be better rather than worse for having rented a percentage of his land to the Government.

Rent a portion of your land for cash. Make the percentage big enough to equalize supply to demand.

Make the payment big enough so the owner will be better off if he complies. Give that land the full water-and-soil conservation treatment at Government expense.

My estimate would be that by the time this program had proceeded to the point where even 25 percent of the producers' productive land in the country had had the complete soil treatment, supply would equal demand and increased population would require use of at least some of that soil bank.

Yes, I do belong to the greatest farm organization in the world and I heartily agree with them when they say we believe in a high income of honest dollars that will buy a dollar's worth.

With more instead of less freedom and in a world of peace.

STATEMENT FILED BY VERNON L. FITZSIMMONS, CUNNINGHAM, KANS.

Realistic and purposeful efforts must be made to bring the farmer's income and buying power to an equal with that of other laboring people.

Factors that effect farm income such as insects, rainfall, stands at planting time, temperature changes, etc., make hard and fast rules without a great deal of wisdom of little value.

Each commodity may need a program adapted to its own problems.

If the farmer's income is to be high enough to meet his needs we must have foreign markets; home consumption is not enough.

I believe one of the first problems to be solved is our surpluses. "Yardsticks" should be set up to provide adequate stocks and carryovers to meet all needs but they must be handled in such a way as to not depress markets. As in the case of wheat all stocks that are not needed or do not meet recognized standards must be disposed of at once. (Yes, someone will be hurt but everyone is hurt now.)

If support programs are in effect "quality in demand" (these will vary from time to time) must be taken into account. A positive approach in support levels could be in effect now instead of the negative one that is being used. Quality products should be worth more than a given level as well as poor products being worth less than the given level.

The Government should have a more active research program to find more uses for our various commodities especially ones in surplus. All the people would benefit from such a program.

As to proposed programs where the Government would lease land to take it out of production, they could good in theory and they have merit but the average to small farm must produce some income on every acre if the farmer is to meet his oligations and maintain anything but the lowest standard of living Certainly the large farm would be benefited the most it seems to me.

In this part of the State acres taken out of wheat production are having a tendency to increase livestock numbers to a point where they are becoming burdensome. Farmers are doing this not because they are short of Cadillacs but short on dollars.

STATEMENT FILED BY FLOYD GOODENOUGH, PRETTY PRAIRIE, KANS.

My name is Floyd Goodenough of Pretty Prairie, Kans., in Reno County. Over the period of 11 years that I served on the county committee of the AAA, PMA, and ASC, I have discussed the price situation with many farmers in Reno County and county committeemen in other counties; and I am sure that a large majority feel that all farm prices should be supported at parity. We feel that this is just a fair price. The support program for wheat and corn should be handled as in the past. We feel that perishable commodities should be supported also by the use of the same plan that is now being used for wool. That is, production payments be made direct to the farm for the difference between the market price and parity price-with a limit on this payment in any one year.

We recognize that controls on acreage are necessary. But we feel that they should be graduated so as to protect the amount of cash income required by a small farmer to meet his family living costs. For example, in the case of a farmer with only a 50-acre base or less, we feel a cut of only 10 percent is justified. As the base acreage increases the percentage would be increased so that at the 900-acre base level, the reduction would be possibly 60 percent. Base acreage above this would be cut accordingly to get the total reduction necessary. We feel that our problem is not one of total overproduction, but rather one of the uncertainty of prices that lead to shifting production which causes overproduction on some commodities. We feel that if parity prices are certain, farmers will use their land to the best advantage and keep production more in line with need.

Excess acres should be put in reserve, and farmers should receive a soilconservation payment on it, with an additional payment for planting soilbuilding crops that will not be harvested. Some farmers favor bushel allotment instead of acres, but all agree that the same graduated scale I have outlined for use in acreage allotments should be used.

Some favor the acreage as we now have because with wheat, for example, farmers would produce more than their bushel allotment would permit them to market. Consequently, we would have a lot of wheat going out of condition on the farms, unless it could be used for feed which would enter into competition with corn and other feed grain.

At a recent farm group meeting called to discuss the farm problems and to make recommendations for this meeting, it was recommended that if acreage allotments are used, that some kind of a recovery plan should be made to help the farmer in case of crop failure-possibly a percentage increased allotment the next year; and if bushel allotments are established, a bushel quota should be given each farmer for a term of years so that in case of crop failure, it could be made up the next year.

We believe the average-size farmers are entitled to price protection that will permit them to continue in their way of life and pay their taxes.

We than you for your time spent at this meeting and for any support you can give us.

STATEMENT FILED BY CORLIS D. GOYEN, JR., PRATT, KANS.

I am a young farmer in Pratt County. Wheat and stocker-calf feeding are my main enterprises. I served in World War II so I did not begin farming until 1947. I rent all the land that I farm. If it was not for my dad's help, I believe it would have been impossible for me to have started farming.

I believe Secretary Benson is doing the best job he can with the big problems he has.

I doubt if Congress can pass any kind of law that will give farmers all of what they want. I believe you should leave the law as it is now and maybe add to it a soil-bank program.

I am opposed to the rigid supports because they got us into the mess we are in now.

I believe flexible supports would have worked if they had gone into effect in 1948 when they should have.

The two-price system sounds good but I believe farmers will rebel against it if wheat goes as low as I feel it might; also feed producers will not like to compete with the subsidized wheat farmer.

As a renter I wonder if I would get any of the payment from the soil-bank plan or would my landlord get all of it.

Congress can do these things for the farmer. It can take the gas tax off tractor gas. It can put more money in agricultural experimentation. It can get rid of our surplus even if it means dumping it in the ocean. It can cut expenses in the Government. It can reduce our debt and then cut taxes. Agriculture will be better off if our products are used instead of stored regardless of prices received. If consumers quit using our produce, then we are lost forever.

STATEMENT FILED BY LEE L. GRUB, SYLVIA, Kans.

I would like to express my views on an agricultural program as a farmer. A farmer should receive full parity on all farm commodities on a graduated basis in favor of the family-type farmer. When controls are needed I recommend bushel and pound allotment in place of acreage allotment.

On nonstorable commodities the Federal Government should pay a subsidy payment direct to the farmer, the difference between full parity and market price.

I favor a recovery plan to help the family-type farmer in case of crop failure so he can recover his loss of income over a period of time. A farmer should not be penalized because of crop failure.

Under

I recommend the Federal Government regulate processor's profits. present program the farmer's loss is not reflected at all in the consumer's cost. This allows the middleman to make a huge profit. Yours for the betterment of family-type farmers.

STATEMENT FILED BY HAROLD H. HOLSTE, NORTON, KANS.

I believe in a fair farm program that would benefit everyone concerned. We hear a lot about this family-size farm; and I would like to have it defined: What is a family-size farm?

In regard to the price squeeze: We all realize that 85 percent of that is labor cost.

In regard to the farm program: In our part, where we summer fallow, we already take half of our land out of production every year. Something should

be done about that situation.

In regard to whether the Secretary of Agriculture has taken a good step toward paying a bonus for good quality or milling quality wheat: Poor milling quality wheat which is merely feed should be classified as such.

We do not want them to forget conservation and I firmly believe that the water should be conserved where it falls.

And if the Government is to pay for something, I think a good-size payment could be made on terraces and small pasture dams.

In regard to the selling of our products: I firmly believe that if our products are transported and kept in the same good clean condition as they are when they leave the farm, there would be no trouble in selling these products to the foreign markets for human consumption.

Furthermore, when they draw up a farm program it should be such a program so as not to make liars out of good honest people.

STATEMENT FILED BY GERALD HORNBAKER, KANSAS FARMERS UNION, STAFFORD, KANS.

My name is Gerald Hornbaker. I am a wheat farmer near Stafford, Kans. As a wheat farmer it is my firm contention that all farmers producing all types of commodities must have assurance of price in advance of the production cycle of each commodity.

In my area our land is most suitable to wheat production and in order to maintain an adequate level of income we must have the acres and price.

The welfare of the wheat farmer in our area is dependent on the welfare of all farmers over the whole Nation. We feel that in order to hold our acres, farmers in other areas, not so suitable to wheat, must be given a price protection on crops most suitable to their area so that they can forego wheat allotments and let wheat be produced in the most suitable areas.

We feel all farmers are entitled to parity of income.

Price assurances at

full parity level coupled with controls to meet requirements must be accepted as part of the pattern.

The support program on basics at or near parity and production or incentive payments on other commodities and perishables would put our production pattern in order. Production shifts as is now being experienced in hogs and cheap feed grains is costly to farmers and creates unwarranted surpluses which become costly to taxpayers too if emergency action is taken.

A full prgram of supports, incentives, and controls would put our total acreage-nationwide to its best, most productive use. Areas not needed to produce our Nation's requirements currently-can under an acreage reserve plan-be available when our rapidly growing population requires more food and fiber. A reserve for future food needs is a sound investment-the cost of which should be borne by all the people.

A good reserve and a reserve of potential farm production power is just as sound an investment and just as necessary to our security as is the building of reserves of bombers and armaments. These we hope and pray will never be used. Food-with our population growing around 8,000 a day-we know will eventually be needed.

Supports and production payments on all farm commodities will assure farmers of an adequate income and establish a production pattern employing the best land use. Controls on all commodities will prevent surplus buildups. Support programs are effective and relatively low in cost when supplies are kept in line with consumer requirements. An acreage reserve will put a balance wheel on the farm economy and reserve will be available for future emergencies.

Senator ANDREW SCHOEPPEL,

Topeka, Kans.

WAKEENEY, KANS., October 29, 1955.

Dear SENATOR: I am taking the liberty of writing you, with a sincere attitude of a constructive nature. I do not wish to cry over the milk that has already been spilled, but in order to visualize, we must analyze the past, present, and future agricultural economics. Prior to 1933, we operated on a theory of abundance of production. If we could not meet our fixed obligations when the price of our products sagged, we increased our production. This, to me, was the first noticeable period, that in the overall economic future the farmers' abundance of production theory was in competition with the industrial controlled scarcity theory. Agriculture covered itself with this abundance of production, going broke; while the owners of industry took a drastic cut in production, yet maintained a profit on what they did produce. We were literally starving to death, in a land of plenty.

These two theories in our overall economic setup, did not work then, and think they never will, unless, we wish to destroy all of our family-size farias and turn the entire agricutural production over to corporations, with possib', the control in a few large ones, who, in turn, will control all the foods at a price that will maintain a profit. I shudder, when I visualize the result.

Some 25 years ago, our leadership, both of farm organizations and Government, formulated plans and adopted laws to do something about this. During this period, agriculture was financially lifted to its peak of prosperity. This created vast purchasing power, some call it demand, but I ask you, "What good is demand, unless there is purchasing power?" During this period, the words "parity" and "subsidize" were often in print, but few farmers had ever heard of them before. Yet, the latter had been used quite commonly in some phase of our national economy, ever since we became a nation.

Parity is the word I wish to talk about. It is a good English word, and I think it is synonymous with some of our other patriotic words, such as equality, liberty, justice, etc. It means equality and ratio of purchasing power between persons engaged in the various segments of our overall economy. Its application is a necessity, if the capitalistic system is to survive. Parity, in its true meaning, when applied, has neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. When abused, its effects are disastrous. Parity's application and function, in the beginning of the farm program, was intended to provide equal purchasing power, which would pay debts, replace equipment, provide family education, home modernization and other necessities, pertaining to a standard of living equal to those enjoyed by the average citizen.