There is no question that agriculture is America's leading industry, and that farmers, as consumers, in a normal year will use more steel than the amount used in auto production, more petroleum products than any other industry, which are just two of the many products it takes to operate a farm. A farmer is one of the best customers industry can have, when he is doing well. It is common knowledge the downward trend of farm income total dropped from $31,224 million in 1953 to $30,203 million in 1954, for United States farm income. Oklahoma dropped from $567,024,000 to $552,274,000 in 1954. The lost income is also shown in the average size farm mortgage debt which has increased from $1 billion first half of 1954 to $1.3 billion as of now.

The lost farm income has not been felt as yet in the industrial areas, although it will reach there in near future if not stabilized. But we can assure the committee that it has been felt in our local community. We can name several (five or more) farm-mahinery dealers in Logan County who have closed out their business in the past 3 years. Records can be shown of many small farm sales. We can certainly state that a majority of the small farmers are working part time at some other occupation, though not because they like to work hard, but because they need the extra income. This is not good for agriculture. You cannot operate a modern farm and serve two masters.

The mystery to a great many farm people is why the downward trend in their income continues, while other industries are going on to new record highs? Nearly everybody is enjoying boom times except the farmer.

Notwithstanding, the sharp decline in farm income our concern is for the farmer's future, more so than with the immediate part. We should protect and stabilize our leading industry.

The present farm price-support program is both inadequate and ineffective. It falls far short of its major purpose of stabilizing the farm economy. The same would apply to the rigid 90 to 100 percent of parity bill, without a limit on the amount of money any one producer could draw. Farmers should have 100 percent of parity with a limit under $5000 to each producer.

The majority of the farmers of this Nation want a price-support program as proven by every referendum of recent years.

Price supports without a limit will only create more surpluses and keep agricultural commodities out the world trade.

A look at some 1953 price-support figures should show why a limit is needed. Less than 2 percent of the Nation's farmers received 25 percent of the total price-support benefits.

Nine percent received 50 percent of the benefits, and 90 percent of our farmers received less than half of the price-support benefits..

For example, the five largest cotton growers in California averaged $649,335. One instance can be shown where a loan was made in excess of $1 million to one corporation, which is not an American concern (in the State of Mississippi). The 5 largest wheat loans of 2 Northwestern States averaged $176,000. The five largest loans of this State will rank close to those.

While it is true that this unfair distribution of price supports has made some contribution to the farm economy, in common justice to ourselves and children we cannot continue to pay huge sums of money to factory type commercial farms, and at the same time let only a small amount reach the small family farmer, which is the majority of our farm population.

Since 1935, the large commercial farms have increased some 37 percent. They now control some 42 percent of all United States farmlands. It has been stated proudly by advocates of commercialized farming that they produce 85 percent of the Nation's produce. Therefore, they should take the largest cuts.

The trend toward commercialized farms has been very rapid in the past few years, and will continue faster under a price-supports system without a limit. Every farmer in his own area has watched it grow, if the trend is not slowed it will ruin small-business men in towns throughout our Nation, for a commercial farm will buy very little locally. He will buy direct from factories in large quantities.

What is true in the price-support program, also applies to the rstriction of acres. The largest producer has every advantage. You cut a man of 1,000 acres, 35 percent and he can find 350 acres which would not grow wheat anyway. You cut small producers 35 percent and he will take a full cut.

Our present allotment law should be amended to provide for a minimum allotment, and a graduated rate of reduction on all farms above 160 acres. A bushel quota for each farm should be given every consideration.

The problems of agriculture can be stated in very few words, surpluses or overproduction. We believe our food surplus is a blessing in disguise, if we use it as a Christian nation should. We would like to suggest several things we should do with our surplus food:

1. We should sell more of it on the world market.

2. We should make it easier for foreign countries to get our surplus food. 3. We should offer more of it free to needy people in this country, also to needy people in the Iron Curtain countries.

4. It should be traded for raw materials that we hold in short supply in this country.

5. More money should be spent on research on the commodities we have in surplus. The research report as to what was done with short staple cotton, is good news to the cotton industry.

6. Farmers and farm organizations should do a better job of selling our products and telling the farm side of the story.

A lot is being made of the fact that the farmers now are in a minority, but are they considering the merchants and professional people in small towns throughout the Nation who depend on agriculture for their living? We are not worried about this minority talk. We as farmers comprise the Nation's No. 1 industry, and therefore are the largest consumer of raw material. Is there any doubt that a sick farm economy will not spread into other industries in the near future?

Again we wish to thank the committee for any consideration they may give this statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Holmes, will you step forward, please, sir.

STATEMENT OF J. C. HOLMES, LAVERNE, OKLA.

Mr. HOLMES. Senator, I was raised on a farm. This is the third time in my lifetime that we went through these wringers and my sympathy goes out to you boys who have to correct this. I don't want to argue. I would say the farm program has done me very little good in hog and cattle raising. I always went along with it. I haven't tried to be a dog in the manger. I haven't any way out except the hard way.

It is going to take a lot of guts and work to get anything done. My father advocated one-seventh of the land should lay idle back there in 1903 when we had two-bit corn. I don't know the way out. I believe in the soil bank and soil conservation. I believe in those things if it can be worked out.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

(Mr. Holmes prepared statement follows:)

Marking back to Grover Cleveland's administration, it seems that farmers have either had hard times making a profit in producing agricultural products or the Nation has been at war. Three steps west by my father each time to new lands. Then, it was all cheap; labor, land, and tools. Coxey's armies, I do not remember, but when Kansas had a big wheat crop was my first experience when they argued that 10 percent increase "over production" would cut the price half, and to my recollection, this was the beginning of Government help, aid, or interference. It came to pass finally that the CCC began to buy this surplus or make loans on it and it did not take 10 years to build up a year's extra commodities in the peaceful years. So now it is this surplus that is driving us

crazy.

You have come here to try to decide: What to do with our surpluses, try to stop them from accumulating, and try to get the farmer a living return for his work as well as keep him from voting against the administration that is in, or the one that may come in.

To analyze this program would be fairly easy if we know what the weather, wars, and wishes of the people were to be. I'd bet the rest of my life that straight socialism or a war with Russia would cure the overproduction. The other routes out will be hard on account of human nature and will only be routes that are

as reasonable, fair, and simple as can be worked out when we are at peace and everyone but the farmer is fairly happy. We don't want war, so that is out. How much socialism do we want with 13 percent of the farmers as voters? If other countries can't make it work, what would happen if production in other industries catch up and unemployment grew excessive? Out our program would go.

You know the reasons why the processing tax didn't work is because it worked backward on perishables. What became of the millions that the producers lost that was up in escrow? The high supports are in trouble not only because the surpluses are driving us crazy but the costs of production are pushed up and the allowable acre value is jumping in price. We didn't like OPA during the last war or set prices because it had to cover so many different situations and only fit the choice spots. Who got the subsidies and had to pay the big income tax on it? Not I or farmers.

The programs of eat more beef, pork, rice, butter, etc., is O. K., but you can't get away from the fact that when cowhides got down to a nickle a pound farmers quit saving them, that a lot of dairymen are eating oleo at 20 cents a pound, and cheapness is the essence of trade. What good did the farm program do us in the drought era except make feed cost higher until the Government had to give aid in order for the farmers to stay and try to keep the dust down, etc.? We still have to guess what the economic swing will be in long, peacetime on social security, old-age pensions, and unemployment compensation. We know the horse is out, that people are eating less wheat and potatoes, using less wool and heavy clothing, and if the price is too high they certainly will use substitutes. We know that the price of wheat and cotton doesn't change the price of a loaf of bread or a cotton dress much. However, as our economy settles, there will be a lot of difference between what the boys and girls want and what they have to have.

I live out in the great surplus area and want to stay, but if we do away with supports in moist years and don't raise anything in dry years, how can it be done, outside of irrigation and taking in one another's washing? Henry Wallace wasn't too far wrong when he killed pigs and cows and burned surpluses; however, that probably is out, but something has to be done with these surpluses because we can't keep renting ground to hold them on, and it seems unlikely that a profitable market can be had as long as they are in sight. So it must be done, down to a reasonable surplus. What? Sell? Give away? Or turn to fertilizer that crazy surplus. Sure, start over with a middle-of-the-road program, not try to get rich and then when you get rich during a war and the farm deal goes sour, howl because they take a big part away from them. You cannot forecast all the ins and outs of the people's wants and desires. A cold winter would help pork consumption or even spoil a lot of spuds.

Now what can be done? First thing to my mind is my father who advocated letting one-seventh of the farm lie idle and each and every man rest the seventh day. We did not use fertilizers then and had plenty of land. The little farmer raised about all he ate and peddled a lot directly to his neighbors then and he is going to have to do that, along with a side job, if he stays. The economy line is pretty narrow to keep away from a drop or inflation. We have gone too far to go back and start all over like we did after the Civil War and World War I, if we can prevent it. It will take courage, skill, and a lot of staying to keep the economy on the track. We have a lot of things to do like building of recreation lakes on every 6-mile square in this whole country, and completing our upstream flood controls and land uses.

We need schools, a lot of junior colleges and colleges, because each boy now needs to know his chemistry, physics, and bacteriology and even engineering. The $10 billion road program is needed. There are literally millions of homes that need modernizing or finished modernizing, repaired, and landscaped. To me, the money isn't so important as the way of life and our independence to keep our boys and girls free to use their initiative and know partly where they are at when starting a new career.

The legislative branch of our Government probably will have to take a plank out of each of the farm organizations programs and consumers wants.

If we get 90 percent support, we just as well have 105 percent and full acreage and bushel and bale controls.

If we take the middle of the road, 70 to 80 percent of parity or set price on dollar an hour wage, the Government should make as much of the products stay on the producer's farm or in the community as possible where they make a loan. The overproducer should have to take care of most of these loan products.

Would the farmer prefer reduction by law or by price, and to what extent in world markets?

It will be impractical to make a farmer with a small farm and large family cut his acreage or production, as he will need it all to live on.

Really, if bad comes to worse, the larger farmer has a lot to lose and the smaller operator very little and he may tough it out in shallow water when the big fish die. In 1930, a family could eat on $5 a week. It now takes $50.

I prefer the middle of the road after long deliberation and going through the past ups and downs-win, lose, or draw.

The man that had 9 dairy cows and barely made a living at 90 percent parity said he added 3 or 4 more cows and lost money at 75 percent of parity. What would this man have done if the Government had supported the milk at 100 percent parity? I say he would have added 10 more cows, and if let alone would cut back to 7 or 8 at 75 percent of parity and with a little self-help either gotten his cost down or milk price up on the open market.

For me when hogs get under the cost of production I take my loss and quit raising them until the price of pork gets back so it will show a feeding profit. For cattle when one owns his own pastures to summer on and alfalfa to winter on and cattle does not pay the labor bill the cattle are left to shift for themselves with a little effort. Enough can be sold to pay taxes and fix fences and beef will be cheap until more weight is developed by higher prices and cheaper feeds. We have virtually quit buying anything but sugar and flour and wearing our old clothes out until the income gets back in line with outgo.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Worthington. Give your full name, please, and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF HENRY W. WORTHINGTON, MANGUM, OKLA.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Henry W. Worthington, Mangum, Okla.
The CHAIRMAN. You are a farmer?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, I live on a farm.

Mr. Chairman, I know what a job your committee has done. What you folks want is to know what to put in the new farm law. You are going to have to work it out. The present farm program is outmoded like machinery with advances. It is going to have to be changed. There are many loopholes that you have to fill in. Knowing how legislation is made, I think a lot of things could be spelled into the next bill, what can and what cannot be done, in writing the legislation.

Whenever you give too much authority to a board or commission to make its own laws, rules, and regulations, then it can do most anything it wants to do. The present farm program is on an acreage allotment. I am a small tenant farmer. I do the very best that I can, and there are many tenant farmers in the southwestern part of the State in which I live. The allotted acreage is so small to those tenant farmers until they cannot make a living. Many of them are selling out. They are moving into town. I think that the bill should be so written that the man with a small acreage should not be penalized because he is a small farmer. I would not have control of acreage on a farm of 160 acres on down. It is not the little farmer that produced a surplus. It is the commercial farmer that has produced the surplus.

Why should the little farmer, the farmer that is trying to live out there on that farm and raise his crops be penalized to where he can't do it, that he must sell his land or if he rents his land he must give up his place and go into the overcrowded cities. We want to look to the future just as well as we look at the present. What are we going to do with the migration from farms to cities if we go ahead and commercialize all the farming lands there is in these United States?

Gentlemen, it is a problem that has to be worked out. It is a problem that we have got to face and it is a problem you have got to solve in Congress yourself.

Can the taxpayers pay for the welfare load that is going to be created by farmers migrating to town? Industry cannot absorb it. But this man, if he has a sufficient amount of acres out there on this little farm he is on to feed himself and his family, he can stay there and stay off of the labor market.

The labor market is so well organized that an unskilled farmer cannot go into the city and make a living like he can make a living on his little farm.

I think that the next farm bill should carry this provision that it should be on pounds and bushels because the acreage is not going to solve it. I will tell you why it is not. There is a lot of irrigation in my part of the country. Here is a man that has a poor farm. He has got 10 or 15 acres of cotton. Here is another man that has irrigated land. He goes over and rents this man's land or buys this man's land and he moves this cotton acreage to the irrigated land and he will produce five times as much cotton as the man would have produced on the poor land. You are not reducing your surpluses one bit as long as we have got a condition that will do that.

The thing you have got to do is write a farm bill where every unit of land will carry its own acreage and give a pound and bushel.

I will give you an illustration. You give me an allotment for 25 bales of cotton. I make 50 bales of cotton. I sell my 25 bales at the support price, which I think should be a hundred percent because when you give the farmer 90 percent he is taking 10 percent less than the other man is getting for his production.

I sell this 25 bales at the 90 percent or the 100 percent or however the law is set up, and then I have got 25 bales to sell next year and I have my next year's crop made and my land can rest and I can rebuild it. Whether your land-bank plan or rental plan upon the idle acres will work now I don't know.

I think it would be an experiment that would have to be tried. I know that, Senator, when you and I were born, my father was born in Louisiana, a native of your State, he fought in the Civil War and he fought to defend southern rights and today I, the son of that old man, that old father of mine, I am out here before this committee not just because I have the money to come or because I wanted to come, but to defend the rights of the little farmers of this country and I don't think that I am wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement here. The time is growing short and I am not going to talk any longer.

The CHAIRMAN. Give it to the clerk.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I am going to give you this prepared statement. I know what a job you have from experience, and I hope you do a good job and I am banking on you.

(Mr. Worthington's prepared statement follows:)

I am glad of the opportunity to present these written statements to your committee for your study that you may know just how the people of southwestern Oklahoma feel toward and about the farm program today. And, further, I am sure that the committee wants all the facts of the conditions as they actually exist today, that the study you are making will help you to enact a farm program next year that will be fair to the farmer and the consumer. All segments of society must be considered in any national legislation that Congress enacts.