cause those other segments of our economy, namely capital, industry, and labor to flex when agriculture flexes. All segments of our economy must flex together if we are to have a prosperous and balanced economy for all our people. The 90 percent of parity principle has been debated extensively. Farm people generally seem to understand this principle better than the flexible plan. This may be more understandable when you consider the fact that the farmers' costs of operating are not as flexible as the markets upon which they must sell. The farmer knows that it takes hard cash to pay his bills and that no creditor has to date accepted philosophy as a medium of exchange. The farmers' markets are as changeable as the four winds in Kansas. I challenge any other segment of our economy to operate under similar operating costs and market conditions and long survive. The greatest objection being raised with respect to agricultural programs is the amount of money that the Government has invested in the different phases of them and particularly in the huge amounts of agricultural commodities that the Government is now required to take off the hands of the producers if the producers choose to let the Government have the product because they cannot obtain a just price at the public market place. Under certain conditions after surpluses and additional amounts which would otherwise be marketed normally become so great, the Government requires acreage allotments on certain basic commodities in an effort to control production. In my estimation this is a weak system. The farmer merely does a better job of farming, adds more fertilizer, and produces just as many or more bushels or pounds from his limited acreage as he did before acreage allotments were invoked by the Secretary of Agriculture. I want to suggest to the President, the Secretary of Agriculture, Members of the Congress, and to the farmers and ranchers of this Nation a plan which, if provided with the necessary legislation to implement it, would result in a grassroots or individualistic control of the basic commodities marketed each year. We will always know approximately what our normal consumption of the basic commodities will be each year, also what our normal carryover of each should be, and also we will know about how much of each commodity we will be able to export each year. The necessary legislation needed then is to prohibit marketings of the basic commodities in excess of normal consumption, plus a normal carryover and amounts exportable each year, of the commodities defined as basic. If this were done it would result in the farmer or rancher carrying over into the next marketing year any fractional part of his production of the basic commodities in excess of marketable quotas. The producer then in turn would naturally control his own production by his own farm practices. Perhaps he would not plant quite so many acres of a given commodity the next year or he might plant the same number of acres but not fertilize quite so heavy, then again he might choose to rest some of his land. Also, if he produced in 2 years all he could market in 3 years, he would not necessarily have to plant any acreage of a given commodity the third year if he so chose. Such legislation would need to allow for certain adjustments so that the foreseeable demands for consumption, carryover, and exportable amount would be allowed to reach the markets. For instance, drought may strike a certain area and for that reason in order that consumption, carryover and export demands may be met such adjustments of marketing should be incorporated in such legislation. Also, the farmer or producer has a right to that market demand and the consumers and the people as a whole have a right to expect that a normal flow of the basic commodities will be available to meet the demands of their normal consumption, carryover and exports. Provision for wartime production and marketing should be included. This plan, I believe, would result in more individual freedom of action to the producer in the operation of his acreage in the production of any commodities defined as basic. This plan would take the Government out of the storage business as such and the producer would control his surplus production until actually marketed through our regular free market system. Under this plan farmers and ranchers will need credit made available to them at reasonable rates of interest so that they can store their surplus commodities either in commercial storage or provide storage on their own premises. Government by law now provides many kinds of long-term credit. If any changes are necessary in present laws mentioned above Congress should take such action. Congress should also provide certain price guaranties that would effect a stabilized market without the Government actually having to become owner of the commodities. This plan would eliminate the Government from its present position of being the dumping ground for large quantities of agricultural products. If this plan should be adopted, present surpluses now owned by the Government should be segregated or walled off and disposd of in a manner most advantageous to the Government and the people of our Nation as a whole. This plan would be in keeping with the much-desired and much-needed trend of restoring more responsibilities back to the individual citizen with the Government resuming its rightful role of umpire in its relation to our agricultural economy. + By this plan our Government will be doing just what it is doing for other segments of our economy, that of assisting a major industry (agriculture) to stabilize its markets. This is not an unreasonable demand by agriculture upon our Government since our Government long ago embarked upon an artificial economy for capital, industry and labor. This plan, I believe would prove to be less expensive and burdensome to administer than any plan previously tried. I appeal to my fellow farmers, public officials and to all citizens of this Nation to give this plan a lot of solemn thought and study, having uppermost in your minds what is best for our total economy. Why should farmers be compelled to operate in an economy that forces maximum production at all times because of the fear that if he does not he will not have the necessary funds required to provide food, clothing, shelter, the necessary tools with which to do so, and at the same time maintaining a reasonable standard of living and providing education for his children. Having to operate under such an economy forces the farmer to dissipate the greatest resource this Nation has, the soil. If it were possible for the farmer to operate under a stable economy, he could spend more time and money working at a most important job, that of conserving the soil which should be turned to our children in better condition than we found it if the people of this Nation are to continue to be prosperous and able to defend this Nation in the decades ahead. Furthermore, the farmer might then have a little time to really get acquainted with his family, and if they so choose the family could take a little time off, from forced production, to take a much-needed vacation once a year. A little fishing and yes even a bit of side line recreation such as golf might be most helpful to the farm family in many ways, particularly in sharing in the responsibility of helping to stabilize our agricultural economy. Other segments of our economy have enjoyed subsidies either direct or indirect for so long that they now consider them a part of the American system and oftentimes spokesmen for these groups are the most vocal in urging farmers to produce without limit and accept without complaint the prices of unregulated markets and supplies which have in the past history of this Nation not only produced economic chaos for agriculture, but brought economic chaos down upon capital, industry, and labor. A balanced and stabilized economy in this Nation is possible if we can have proper cooperation between the several segments of our economy. The Government's role should be that of assisting the several segments to cooperate with one another. As agriculture goes so goes the Nation. Gentlemen, the real purpose of a farm program is to provide adequate income for agricultural producers of all agricultural commodities. Perhaps, another approach might be to attack the problem by dealing with the boom in other segments of our economy. They are running wild while agriculture is in a slump. The agricultural problem should be dealt with in its proportion to the total economy. (The following statements were submitted for the record by radio station KFH, Wichita, Kans. :) Get the big hogs out of the trough and the little ones can eat. Take off all controls and payments. Let supply and demand guide us. This is American way of life in United States of America. Don't let big business that makes lots of money buy land and livestock and get out of paying their income taxes. Tax all city farmers or suitcase farmers and put the farming business back to the honest to goodness farmer who has to make his living only that way. Get rid of Benson, save his salary for the United States Treasury. Mr. and Mrs. JESSE JONES, Severy, Kans. You asked for information to present to Senate Agriculture Committee. I believe prices should be supported at 90 to 100 percent of parity in order to improve farmers bargaining power. This support should be limited to familytype-farm scale of operations. Subsidies can be in form of loans, production payments, or others, probably depending on commodity. RAYMOND REGIER, I heard you ask for us farmers to send cards for the Hutchinson farm meeting. I would like to suggest to let us small farmers raise wheat on our 80 acres and cut the acreage for the big farms, the ones that doctors, lawyers and big businessmen have. How can we pay our tax $416.25 on 80 acres with 39 acres wheat, the rest a failure. A farmer all my life. Mrs. HULDA STUCKEY, Wichita, Kans. To reestablish the American farmer's faith in the United States Government, out with Benson, in with Clifford Hope Give the farmer a defense contract like G. E. Motors has, or 100 percent parity. C. W. FLOOD, Here are my suggestions for helping the farmers: 1. Government to pay grower for specified number of bushels of wheat. Open market for the rest of it. 2. Deduct from payment any income (nonfarm salaries, wages, etc.) derived from any other source than farming. 3. Government pay for seeding alfalfa. Yours truly, CLINTON F. MCILRATH, It would probably help the livestock situation if we would quit importing meat while we were so overproduced. Another thing if the spread, between meat on the hoof and meat over the block, were decreased. I am for wheat allotment and 100 percent parity. HAROLD C. HOUSER, THOMAS TROUPE TYLER III, I am for wheat allotment and 100 percent parity. Do not believe in Government loan but think when the Government pays money the wheat would be theirs immediately and then the Government would not need to hold it for redemption but could dispose of it at any time. TOM TYLER, Jr., Arkansas City, Kans. 64440-56-pt. 5- -14 We feel we should have our nickel's worth of say here and now, since it looks like Mr. Benson is good to give us more of the same. How we farmers feel toward the Bensons that tolerate the 14-cent-per-hour wage raise at Minneapolis stockyards to hired help, the same week farmers got the rock-bottom prices for his hogs sold there, too; the three wage raises all union labor got since Mr. Benson cut our wages to 75 percent of parity. Lots and lots of farmers have sworn off Mr. Benson and his kind, also buying of any new machinery, automobiles, anything union labor builds. What is justice? Mr. Ezra Benson, we want your answer to this question very, very soon. R. D. YODER & SONS, Yoder, Kans. One morning I heard you say if anyone had anything to say to the Congressional committee at Hutchinson to send it to you and you would pass it on. I hope to be there but don't know the time or place and may not get a chance to say anything. Here is a copy of my letter to Benson about legalizing piracy, etc., for the committee. I also have some other ideas and a warning in mind about history repeating, high taxes prophecy fulfilling, etc. EARL G. CLARK, Sedgwick, Kans. Mr. EZRA TAFT BENSON, United States Secretary of Agriculture, SEDGWICK, KANS., August 25, 1955. Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BENSON: Regarding the 20-cent-per-bushel loan-price cut on certain wheat varieties, not considering soil and weather conditions, which really make or break milling quality and gluten strength; also noting in the newspapers how you showed the Russian delegation our superior American way of life, free enterprise, we wonder why you can listen to the cheap, misleading, deceptive propaganda put out by the agricultural colleges against all private free enterprise? When I was 15 years old, 1912, I found blackhull wheat in the Russian turkey wheat that came from Russian 1906, and it beat everything from the colleges so much that they got some millers with them and fought it and said they would dock it 25 cents per bushel. So I searched further and found a harder variety which I called superhard blackhull, then the college and millers fought it, as it did so well it pushed the college kanred out of the picture. Our blackhulls were very hardy wheat that yielded and tested so high that the millers couldn't dock it several cents per bushel (as they did to other varieties), so of course they were with the college in the fight. Then I secured a cross between blackhull and a good beardless wheat and got rid of the beards, which were a nuisance in harvesting, also increased the yield and test. About that time the college came out with the tenmarq, which was a light yielding and testing wheat that took a dock, favoring the millers again, so the fight went on. Again Clark's wheat was very hardy and stood the rough weather conditions, insects, plant diseases, hail, etc., best, and was a thorn in the sides of the colleges, running their inferior, poor idols out, over a vast territory. Of course the millers like a light-testing wheat that they can dock on test weight until a bad year makes the stuff so light and chaffy that they have to get some of Clark's better wheat to bring up the test. We have received many, many such reports from the farmers, telling how they received a premium of 4 to 10 cents per bushel. Three times the college tried to put private free enterprise out of business by introducing bills in the Kansas Legislature to control the introduction of new wheat varieties by the Kansas State Board of Agriculture, cooperating with the Kansas State Agricultural College, but some liberty-loving farmers and legislators blocked them in setting up that dictatorship, which would have outlawed over 75 percent of Kansas wheat. Several years ago, when Clark's chiefkan wheat was going strong in western Kansas a special meeting of elevator men was called, and a Kansas City miller started reading off some propaganda against chiefkan wheat: after reading a while, a husky young fellow got up pointing his finger at the miller and said, "You ought to be indicted for making and selling that good-for-nothing white flour with all the germ and vitamins taken out, so the flour can sit around a long time, with no bugs or worms in it, because they would starve to death in it. I am from Kentucky and there were no rejects to the Army from our family. Father grew the wheat, ground it up whole, mother made good whole wheat bread from it and we all were healthy and strong." Then a young baker said, "If you could see and smell the dope that comes in cans to put in that white flour to revitalize it, you wouldn't want any of that either." Then an elderly doctor said, "I see the final result in poor, weak, diseased humans trying to live on devitalized food." That broke up the meeting. Milling and baking tests on our better wheats show them to be as good and better than any college-approved wheats, fully as high protein, and as strong gluten, when grown and milled under similar conditions. Why not? I have tested many thousands of varieties in our wheat nursery, and keep and grow only those that have strong, deep-rooted plants that go deep into the soil for the vitamins and minerals that God put there for us to live and work on when we use that "staff of life" complete as He made it; but the processors ruin the best food, making it a "broken reed," therefore many consumers have almost quit eating the good-for-nothing, deathly white, devitalized bread, that they would starve to death on, hence the 50-percent cut in wheat consumption. Then we have acreage-allotment controls, and many farmers use synthetics, chemical fertilizers, hoping for bigger yields, but producing poorer, devitalized wheat. Those fertilizers put back only 3 or 4 of the 22 minerals that the human body needs to survive on. You can fool part of the people part of the time, but you can't fool nature, or many red-blooded, liberty-loving, brave American wheat growers, who will keep on planting Clark's better seed wheat, that even our enemies, the tax-consuming agricultural colleges admit are good yielders of high-test wheat. And we know that Clark's better wheat will make as good and better quality bread as any college wheat, when grown and processed under the same, unbiased conditions, as proven by many reports. Some timid farmers, struggling to make a living, will be scared into planting the inferior, approved college-bred wheat; then these varieties will go down under the onslaught of drought, winterkilling, soil erosion, insects, diseases, hail, etc., cutting their profits and buying power, and hastening on the worst depression and crash that this country ever saw. Is that what the enemies of free enterprise wish to see? Or is that a new scheme to cut production and surpluses? Our tax-supported agricultural colleges put in their time fighting free enterprise that produce superior varieties of wheat that will grow in most all soils and weather conditions and make fair to bumper crops under the same conditions that the approved wheats fizzle out, except undergood conditions, then by misleading propaganda and juggling of figures they try to scare the farmers into growing their inferior wheats. If they would put in that time looking for and breeding up hardy varieties that will produce good crops of high-quality wheat and help educate the people away from devitalized foods, they might earn their paychecks. Are they working for the heartless, coldblooded money power that care nothing for anyone else, but want the farmers to grow light wheat that they can dock? Or is it great fear and jealousy that the farmers will reject their inferior products and plant the stronger, reliable, hardier products of American free enterprise? Therefore, Mr. Benson, we are ready and willing to match our wheat varieties against anything that the colleges have, both on the farm and in the milling and baking institutions, and since you have started the program of docking the loan value 20 cents per bushel on certain varieties of wheat, and since those docked varieties come from free enterprise and are the best yielding and testing varieties—yes, and best milling and baking varieties when given fair, unbiased tests, it is plain enough who are the enemies of American free enterprise, and trying to set up a cheap, dishonest dictatorship over the American wheatgrowers. And don't anyone think for a moment that the brave pioneers of "the land of the free and home of the brave" are going to submit to a gang of pirates, robbers, racketeers, profiteers, and propagandists who have tried over and over again for many years, to put down American free enterprise and set up a foreign-inspired dictatorship. The only fair thing to do is stop that lying propaganda against American free enterprise and set up honest milling and baking laboratories to make unbiased tests on every load of wheat that goes into the elevators, identified only by numbers, not by variety, testing all varieties fairly and let each lot stand on its own |