farmers under the age of 35 in the business as of today, even with the help of their fathers. You put another 10 years of age on myself or any of these baldheaded or gray-haired men here still in the farming business and if there isn't incentive to draw the young fellows back what will we have 10 years from now? To me it is serious. I don't have any boys in my family. I have tried to raise three girls and educate them here at this wonderful college. It costs money.

I am

If it

In order to do so I have to have an income from that farm. farming 160 acres, very few farmers left on that size of farm. wasn't a good farm I would have been off the business long ago. It is a good farm and I have been able to raise good crops. The last 3 years I have had no income. It is a hard proposition.

We are in a position where we can't get help. I grow alfalfa hay and that takes back-breaking work storing it in the barns. The price of that is determined on price of cattle. I am wholeheartedly for a program that will give us support prices or cattle because if the cattleman makes money I will make money growing feed for the cattle. Otherwise, as of today I have a barn full of hay with no market, the first time in my life I haven't been able to sell alfalfa seed. That is the conditions that exist there.

How long we can dig in our products and borrow money to produce, I don't like to pay interest to do that. It is against my grain to have to pay interest to borrow money to produce crops when you are losing money.

I don't know as I have any solution to this. I do want to say this: I want to read this

The CHAIRMAN. Will you put it in the record?

Mr. DOLEZAL. It is here.

The CHAIRMAN. Hand it to the clerk over there and it will be put in the record just as though you said it.

Mr. DOLEZAL. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(Mr. Dolezal's prepared statement follows:)

I am William Dolezal, of El Reno, route 2, Canadian County, Okla. First I want to thank you for this opportunity of expressing my opinion upon a farm program. I think getting the opinion of dirt farmers is the most democratic thing you could do. I know, of course, that advice is always forthcoming from would-be farmers and that theorists are usually wanting to state their opinions, so when you come out to the dirt farmers to get their views upon a farm program, you are to be complimented.

Let me say that no program at all would be much better than the one we have now. I am for repealing the present sliding-scale program completely. About all the present program has done is slide farmers off their land as figures show that the surpluses are increasing and the bottom is falling out of the prices of all farm products.

Benson has helped cut our income down to where we have nothing left after we pay our expenses, but has he said anything about taking a cut in his salary? I wonder if that would be as sound as he continues to say the farm condition is. I haven't heard him say a word about seeing that farmers get a cut in what they have to pay for farm machinery, gasoline, and oil; or whether he has said anything to anyone about getting cuts in a farmer's doctor bill, dentist bill, or anything the farmer has to buy to stay in business now. I haven't heard or read anything anyplace about farmers getting a break on the prices we pay, but it's sound for us to take from 65 to 90 per cent of parity for our products.

Back during the days when we were getting 100 per cent of parity for our products, we farmers were great consumers and improved our farms to where we were just beginning to live, but now I wonder how long under present con

ditions we will be able to use all the electrical equipment on our farms or whether we will have to take out our telephones or any of the other modern conveniences that were placed on farms up to 21⁄2 to 3 years ago.

In formulating a new farm program, I believe allotments ought to be based upon a bushel-and-pound basis instead of upon acreage with 100 per cent of parity on all a family-sized farm could produce. Then the larger the farm gets, the less support the farmer would get on his products. In other words, limit the amount of support to the scale of a family-sized operation. This farm program should also include cheap long-term credit for farmers and a food stamp program for underfed people along with the expansion of the school lunch program.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bellmon, please.

STATEMENT OF HENRY BELLMON, RED ROCK, OKLA.

Mr. BELLMON. I am Henry Bellmon, a farmer. I raise small grain, cattle, sheep, poultry. My sole source of income is farming. I am one of the young farmers. I have been farming since 1947. I have one thing to add to the testimony given here today that I think is new. One thing we farmers produce in short supply and that is wild game. I am constantly troubled with people traipsing across my property in quest of quail and ducks and other wild game they look for.

If you gentlemen in your deliberations can come up with a scheme. in connection with Mr. Davis' proposal to retire some of our ground completely from agricultural production and set up some small game reserves in all these various agricultural areas, you will do a considerable service to agriculture as well as to the urban population.

If you could take that land completely out of production and put it into areas large enough to be stocked with quail and made available to these people who are eager to hunt and spend their money for ammunition and gasoline and some place to spend their idle hours, I am sure you will help agriculture as well as our urban people.

The CHAIRMAN. Who would own the land, the Government or you? Mr. BELLMON. The Government would lease the land at possibly 6 percent rental of appraised value for a long term of years. That is the only thing I have that hasn't been said.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Fleming, please.

STATEMENT OF J. D. FLEMING, SECRETARY, OKLAHOMA COTTON GINNERS ASSOCIATION, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I am J. D. Fleming, secretary of the Oklahoma Cotton Ginners Association. I have a prepared statement which I will file and I wonder if it would meet the approval of the committee to let me leave with them some samples of the problem we have in cotton.

I have two exhibits, if it would please the committee, which I would like to present to them. In this box are 2 blouses, cotton blouses, 1 of which was made in Japan. The cost is a dollar in Oklahoma City this past week. And the top blouse is a blouse made in the United States, which cost $3.98.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. FLEMING. In addition, I have two other products. One is absorbent cotton and the other is absorbent synthetic. The synthetic product is just slightly cheaper than the cotton.

Now, the solution to these two problems we have we have already talked about in the export situation, and which is contained in the statement I will leave with the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

(Mr. Fleming's prepared statement follows:)

I am J. D. Fleming, secretary of Oklahoma Cotton Ginners Association, and this statement is submitted for the association based upon resolutions approved by the membership at the last annual meeting. Oklahoma is honored to be included on the schedule of this important committee and it is indeed a privilege to file this statement.

Your meetings across the Cotton Belt come at a very opportune time because the cotton industry of the United States is probably faced with the darkest future in its long and colorful history. In fact, unless present policies regarding exports and imports are soon reversed the American cotton industry as it is know today will be past history. In the past 25 years exports have declined from about 8 million bales to slightly more than 3 million bales.

The International Cotton Advisory Committee, the most authoritative body in the business on this subject, reports that within the next 2 years foreign free world cotton production may be sufficient to meet all consumption requirements without any exports from the United States.

In addition to loss of foreign markets the American cotton farmer is also threatened with loss of domestic markets from two sources. No. 1 is the sharp increase in imports of finished cotton materials principally from Japan, and No. 2, the continued growth and expansion of the United States chemical fiber industry.

Coming back to the imports of finished cotton goods-Japan can shop around over the world and buy cotton from 3 cents to 5 cents a pound cheaper than domestic mills can buy American cotton. In addition, Japan pays her textile workers approximately 27 cents per hour, compared to United States textile labor rate of $1.35.

What does this mean? Here are two cotton blouses, one of which was made in Japan the other in the United States. Both of these were purchased in Oklahoma City last week. The Japanese blouse cost $1 and the blouse made in the United States cost $3.98. By the weekend it was noted that blouses made in Japan were on sale for 88 cents. These are presented to the committee as exhibits A and B.

It is reported that Japan booked more sales of cotton goods in the United States during July than was sold during all of 1954. This resulted from lowering of tariffs by the State Department at Geneva last spring.

Production of synthetics in the United States is now approximately the equivalent of 4 million bales of cotton and the industry is still growing. Most, if not all, of this growth can be attributed to emphasis placed on research and development. The chemical fiber industries are continually probing and analyzing the individual markets of cotton and wool and then from the research laboratories they develop a fiber with properties specifically tailored for a given end Cotton is being researched out of its domestic markets. The sad part of this situation is that cotton will give the same potential response to the research laboratory as its competition. However, as the cotton industry looks searchingly as to how well it is doing sciencewise, the cold facts show that the synthetics are spending approximately $55 million annually for research and development compared to about $12 million for cotton.

use.

If comparative expenditures for research are too abstract, maybe a look at our competition from an efficiency standpoint would be better. Rayon is by far the chief competitor of cotton and today rayon is underselling cotton 8 to 10 cents a pound.

There are approximately 1 million cotton farmers in 20 cotton-producing States; however, the total cotton industry consists of about 12 million people. Then, too, maintaining a strong and healthy cotton economy is important to all the people in the cotton-producing communities and States. To survive cotton must retain its markets.

To this end the Oklahoma Cotton Ginners Association recommends:

The

(1) That American cotton meet its foreign competition pricewise. Secretary of Agriculture now has this authority, but is being handcuffed by the United States State Department.

(2) That import quotas be placed on finished cotton materials.

(3) That funds be provided the United States Department of Agriculture for a program of research and development comparable to that of the chemical fiber industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. George Graff?

Have you something new?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE GRAFF, CRESCENT, OKLA.

Mr. GRAFF. I think it is, but it is on a different line from what I have heard. I couldn't hear a lot of it too well. It will take about 5 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. We are now running 30 minutes longer than we expected, sir, and we have 75 more witnesses to hear from. Mr. GRAFF. I suppose I might as well file it, then.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would, and I would suggest that others file their statements unless they have something new to give us. Mr. GRAFF. It is in a different light altogether.

The CHAIRMAN. What is it?

Mr. GRAFF. It is the program we have got now and why do away with it? That is what this lines up to.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you offer any solution?

Mr. GRAFF. I was wondering if it isn't all right.

The CHAIRMAN. The same program?

Mr. GRAFF. Yes; this here variable price support should be all right because we haven't given it a try.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the flexible program?

Mr. GRAFF. Yes.

Senator THYE. We did, however, apply it to the dairy industry, did we not? The flexible was applied to that industry?

Mr. GRAFF. That is out of my line, but apparently it is working. Senator THYE. In which manner?

Mr. GRAFF. They way I look at it the dairy situation is coming along in good shape.

Senator THYE. Where do you get your facts?

Mr. GRAFF. From the dairy people themselves, because they don't have much surplus any more. They have whittled the surplus down. The price is cheaper but they are getting along.

Senator THYE. They have a few surpluses.

Mr. GRAFF. They have reduced surpluses.

Senator THYE. But the production is still on the increase?

Mr. GRAFF. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Just file your statement, please.

(Mr. Graff's prepared statement follows:)

I am George Graff, of Crescent, Okla. I raise wheat and other small grain, cotton, and livestock.

Since the committee wants the opinions of farmers on what is wrong with the present farm program and what changes should be made, I welcome this opportunity.

I believe farm programs should allow farmers more freedom in running their own business than is now possible under the present farm program. In my opinion, the reason we have lost the freedom to do as we choose is because the way farm programs have ignored the laws of supply and demand in the past.

I do not like the way that politicians have made a political football out of farmers, and the way that some politicians try to make farmers feel sorry for themselves. Some people are willing to ignore the law of supply and demand as far as farmers are concerned. Some politicians have engaged in an auction sale by trying to outpromise each other. One says I will get farmers 90 percent parity, so the next one says I will get you 100 percent.

Why have we lost our freedom on the farm? It is because we have too much production. Why do we have too much production? Because farmers have been led to believe that they could just keep on on producing and Uncle Sam would worry about the markets. And the people in Government did not have the guts to say, you must cut production. They went through the motions, but not soon enough to stop the surpluses.

And

When farmers vote on a wheat or cotton referendum, they vote for controls. But we have not really controlled yet. I read the other day in the newspaper that if we really grew only the wheat we really need and reduce the surplus, we would plant only 19 million acres, instead of 55 million we are allowed. the land we lay out of wheat we can plant to anything else we want to. So now we have surpluses in just about everything. We have the largest supplies of feed stocks on record-because we wheat and cotton farmers grew too much stuff. With all this feed on hand, we will probably wind up with even bigger surpluses of livestock and dairy animals too.

We read of the terriffic cost of the farm program to the taxpayer. It seems to me that the man the farm program is costing the most is the farmer himself, and not the other taxpayers. Whenever a farm program encourages the production of more than we need-when we already have a surplus-the man who gets hurt is the farmer. The surplus beats down our prices.

Seems to me that this price-support business has been used to help politicians, and it was really meant to help the farmers.

The higher the price support the Government guarantees, the more incentive a farmer has to plant his land to supported crops. The more attractive we make agriculture, the more the Government guarantees, the more windshield farmers will have competing for our land. The higher the price supports, the more inflated land values you wil have. Land is not bought and sold any more on its value-it is sold on how big an allotment it has.

We seem to have forgotten entirely the main value of price supports. Time was when we had to dump our wheat on the market when we harvested it. We had debts to pay and had to sell our wheat.

The price-support program came along, and we could borrow money from the Government by mortgaging our wheat for about half its market value. We could store it, and sell it later, pay our storage costs, and it helped a lot.

We were no longer forced to sell in July. We could get a commodity loan and wait until the market got better.

Whatever happened to that idea? Today, farmers have been taught to think that the Government ought to guarantee them a profit. We have been taught to quit thinking about price support as a loan, and to consider it the price.

I think that we need to go back to that original idea of price supports to let us have orderly marketing.

We need to give flexible price supports a chance to work or fail. They are now being given that chance, but they started with two and one-half strikes against them, in the form of surplus that won't possibly let the market rise. Ninety percent supports were set up as an incentive for wartime production and had about 5 years' peacetime experience in building surpluses before it was finally changed. We ought to give flexible supports at least the same amount of time-5 years, before junking it.

We need to do something in the meantime about diverted acres. We are not going to really control our surplus production until we put some kind of controls on these acres taken out of wheat and cotton, etc.

As I said at the beginning, I do not like controls. But we have built up these surpluses, and we cannot close our eyes to them. Let us control as strictly as possible until we work out of this trouble, and use flexible supports to allow supply and demand to function a little bit,and help keep us on an even keel.

I feel very strongly about this: Rather than go back to 90 percent supports, I would rather have no supports at all-because we would soon find ourselves right back where we are today and worse. You don't cure diarrhea with castor oil.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Backworth? Give your full name, please.