There is over $14 million in the Wakita Bank. I just read their statement. New cars and TV everywhere.

Allow the small farm enough wheat to make a living and cut out the big surplus. MABEL BENSON, Wakita, Okla

On your Tuesday a. m. broadcast, heard you mention "home-baked bread,” well believe it or not at that very time I had a batch of cinnamon rolls and coffee cake in the bread drawer, that I had baked the day before.

Of course I'm just an ole farm gal, the mother of two boys ages 15 and 20, and I'm from a family of an even dozen. Maybe that's the reason I can remember so well the big pans of bread. My dear ole mom baked for all of us. Golly she would have though it a snap if she could have "turned on," the oven as we do today, instead of heating the large range, in summer as well as in winter.

And, Mr. Bethymer, I find the more bread I bake, the more butter we use (I do mean butter, not oleo), so that would be using another surplus we seem to have too much of.

But this is the part I don't understand: With our country growing in population as it is, and prices going up on everything we buy, but everything we have to market from our farms is going down in price?

A listener,

Mrs. Ross B. FRYE,
Little River, Kans.

How can agriculture, which often do not know what they want, because only rarely do they know what is for their good, undertake, of themselves, an enterprise so extensive and so difficult as a formation of a program for themselves by a system of legal law? Isn't it an astonishing fact that our Constitution was actually imposed upon the people against their desire; that some of our Presidents and public officials have been placed in office by the vote of the minority? Left to themselves, agriculturists desire the good, but do not know where the good lies. Their general will is always right, but their judgment guiding is not always well informed. Generally, political propaganda and the like is not a reliable agency to inform the agriculturist how to attain the good they seek, therefore, they do not see things as generally they are or sometimes as they ought to be. The agriculturist must be shown how to attain the good they seek. The latter is one of the problems. It cannot be shown by the political puppets, by special interests, by rigged propaganda, by creeping bankruptcy, or that their soil should be saturated with sweat, blood and tears to achieve a bare existence and for the love of their soil.

Agriculturists must be protected from the temptations inherent in their particular interests; and the inherent interests should not be allowed to ruin the good that has been achieved or to be achieved. And those who cause the temptations, due to their inherent interests, should know that it is not uncommon to find poverty in the background of a radical and to trace his radicalism to discontent with his lot. Certainly, these inherent interests of ruin for agriculture only weigh their present and obvious advantage; never can they see or in many instances do they care about their remote and hidden dangers of their acts, etc. Individual agriculturists see the good which they have rejected. The latter is illustrated by the seemingly present plight of the livestock and related interests. The agriculturists, as a whole, desire the good they do not see. Both, equally, are in need of substantive guidance and law. The individual must be constrained to submit his wishes to reason; the group must learn what they want and to submit to it; that which is best and for the public good. There must not be a surrender to a complete disregard of individual rights for the latter would cause violent and aggressive class struggle which could lead to the inevitable result of a special class or classes to exploit others. But Congress cannot father, what is seemingly being accepted, that industry and management is entitled to limitless profits at the expense of agriculture.

Equality-of-opportunity principle is embraced by Americans as a whole for they feel that their country is a country of equal opportunity. If, by law and by obvious shortcomings, agriculture is rejected equality, and industry and management are allowed limitless profit and encouraged to it by law, then we shall revert to a government by law for the privilege of but a few. It should not be forgotten that the men of agriculture have certain inalienable rights which they

possess as human beings, governments being established to assure these rights and not to deny them; that this Government was created to protect, not to be deaf to the voice of justice and of relationship of all elements to the Nation; that any government, including this Government, has the supreme right to make, and is expected to make, any rules, regulations, and laws necessary for its own survival. Certainly agriculture is subject to the supreme right regardless of the "free and independent" argument that is advanced; and if this Government fails to apply or fears to use the above law of survival, the agriculture people else they are know today are gone for tomorrow.

RANDOLPH LEONARD,

Lyons, Kans.

This is one farm family's opinion of the Government's farm program. The State Department is cutting the farmers' throats by permitting imports of products of which we have a surplus. Why can't we give surplus products to the starving and hungry people of the world instead of subsidizing terminal elevators which in a few years will only be fit for hay storage and no good for that? The only ones benefiting by all these new Government-subsidized terminals are the operators.

The small-business man and the operator of a family-size farm are the stepchildren in this country. Everything else is subsidized and protected by tariffs. The old slogan that hogs are mortgage lifters has been changed to "hogs are mortgage getters."

A. E. FINK,
Oxford, Kans.

We, as farmers, have been asked to say how we are faring. We are owners of a 280-acre farm. Have lived on this farm for more than 54 years.

We are getting along in years now. Husband past 80 years and wife past 85. It has hustled us, for the last 3 years, to make enough to pay our taxes, which are more than $700; for 2 years, we never harvested a grain; this year we raised a little kaffir, not enough, nor good enough to pay for harvesting.

We have a few head of cattle and hogs; the drought has caused us to have to sell some of our cows; feed has been so high to buy, we couldn't afford to buy the feed, and the price of cattle and hogs has been so low, we haven't made anything scarcely above the feed costs and labor.

Of course you all know the farmer has no say at all about what he pays, when he buys, nor what he gets, when he sells.

When the Government thought the farmer was overproducing, it asked the farmer to cut down on his wheat acreage. Some of the farmers didn't pay any attention, and even rented more ground. We had been putting in from 80 to 100 acres, and cut it down to 40, then the Government stepped in and said 15 acres. Of course we objected to that, so they allowed us 23 acres, and 23 it had to be. An acre or more had to be plowed up (pigs killed one time). Now how can one expect to pay high taxes and make a decent living off of 23 acres of wheat, and that was all the crop we had?

Every farmer in this community has other jobs, they say they couldn't make a living just on the farm. We are too aged to get another job.

You can readily see why so many, many farmers are leaving the farms and going to town. The most of the farmers are not young men.

Respectfully,

Mr. and Mrs. T. S. DAVIDSON,

Derby, Kans.

I am not a Commie, I am not even a Socialist. I think the Government ought not meddle in the affairs of its citizens, but since wages and hours laws, and tariffs force the farmer to buy in an artificially high market he ought not to be left out in the cold. I do not favor 75 percent or 90 percent but 100 percent of parity. I would be willing to rent some land to the Government and leave the land idle. However, there is no reason why the Government should pay for the land. The Secretary of Agriculture could estimate what percentage of the land would be necessary to produce what this country would consume. The rest of the land could be left idle in return for support prices for the domestic consump

tion, and prorated to each farmer in proportion to the size of his farm. There would be no need for compulsion. No idle land, no support price for each farmer. If any chose to overplant just let him sell what he produced at the world price. There ought to be a limit to the amount of produce the Government would support for one farmer, it ought to be limited to a family-size farm. If any chose to go in for large acreage let him do so at his own risk. Thanks.

HERBERT L. AUSTIN,
South Haven, Kans.

PRICE-SUPPORT PROGRAM

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1955

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY,

Stillwater, Okla.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a. m., in the field house, Oklahoma A. & M. College, Senator Allen J. Ellender (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Ellender (chairman), Young, Thye, and Schoeppel.

Also present: Senators Kerr and Monroney; and Representatives Albert, Edmondson, Steed and Belcher.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

The committee is very happy to be here in the great State of Oklahoma and the Chair will recognize the distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Kerr.

Senator KERR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great pleasure to me and for Oklahoma to welcome here to Stillwater four of the great men in the United States Senate, leaders on the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Its chairman is our distinguished friend from Louisiana, Senator Allen Ellender. Senator Ellender, we are not only glad to have you here as a Member of the Senate and as a friend, but we are glad that your great college down there, LSU, last Saturday held Maryland to where the Associated Press poll put Oklahoma ahead of Maryland as the No. 1 football team.

At the left of Senator Ellender is Senator Milton Young of North Dakota. At the left of Senator Young is Senator Andy Schoeppel, our neighbor from Kansas.

On this side of Senator Ellender is Senator Edward Thye of Minnesota. To my right is my own distinguished colleague and I want to tell you the greatest junior Senator in the United States, Senator Mike Monroney.

We are grateful to this committee for coming here. They are here to listen to farmers. My own views on this subject are so well known that I will not take the time of the committee or of this audience, Mr. Chairman, but we are grateful to you and your colleagues for being here and for your interest in the very pressing problem and of the greatest interest to Oklahoma.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Kerr.

Senator KERR. Congressman Carl Albert from the Third District, Democratic whip in the House, is here, and Congressman Tom Steed of the Fourth District from Shawnee. Our distinguished member of the House from the First District may be in the audience. Is Page Belcher here?