Senator YOUNG. I don't think there is any. We tried out flexible supports from 1938 to 1941, we had 52 to 75 percent and during that period we increased production of wheat and corn and doubled our carryover of corn in that period. I think you did in cotton, too.

Mr. HARDIN. Just to try to be informative to each other, I wonder if you would attribute that increase to the lower prices? I can't quite reconcile it.

Senator YOUNG. We had a flexible price support in, 52 to 75 percent of parity. You people who believe that flexible supports say that this would have solved this whole problem of surpluses; why didn't it then?

Mr. HARDIN. Well, if you go back to review some of the things that came into the agriculture picture you find hybrid corn that doubled the yield, you found increased use of fertilizer, perhaps the extension people have been educating us to and it was natural for the yield per acre and output per worker to all reflect fruits from those efforts. Senator YOUNG. We did not have much hybrid corn back in 1937-41 as I recall.

Mr. HARDIN. It came in just about that time.

Senator YOUNG. I don't think it came into general use until 6 or 8 years ago.

Mr. HARDIN. I have been growing it 10 years and Iowa had it long before I got it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think what Senator Young has been pointing out is that even under flexible price supports it doesn't tend to reduce production even though the price is lower. Let me give some specific figures as to dairy products. If you recall, Mr. Benson continued the 90-percent price supports on dairy products in 1953. All right. When he restored that the production for 1953 was 121,149 million pounds of milk. Then he put the sliding scale on of 75 percent of parity. What happened? In 1954 when you had your sliding scale, instead of producing 121 billion pounds plus, the farmers produced 123 billion pounds plus. And in 1955 we are going to have the greatest production of milk in history, and yet you have had your flexible pricesupport program on that; how do you acount for that?

Mr. HARDIN. I think that the farmers decide that it is a good opportunity to increase production to cull their cows, they have a better feeding program.

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. HARDIN. They have found markets through expanded school lunch programs, instead of selling it to the Government it is sold to the market.

The CHAIRMAN. You would be surprised how much went to the Government.

Mr. HARDIN. This 123 million, there is less of that in the markets than the 121.

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the entire production. In other words, you would imagine that with lower prices that the farmer had in 1953 you would manage that because of the lower prices he got in 1954 and 1955 compared with what he got in 1953 he would produce less, but he has not. He has produced more and what Senator Young was trying to point out was that lower prices on commodities have a tendency of making farmers produce more to make both ends meet.

Mr. HARDIN. Senator, I hope we don't confuse those tendencies. The thing I—

The CHAIRMAN. I am not trying to confuse it. I am showing you real facts.

Mr. HARDIN. We are not going to fall out about that. The reason dairy farmers came up with 123 billion pounds of dairy products is they learned how to be better dairymen, not because they bought more cows. They have less cows in production than they had in producing

121 billion.

The CHAIRMAN. I asked that question to quite a few dairymen and some said they increased and some said they did not get rid of the lower producing cows just because of this lower price. They had to produce more milk to make both ends meet.

Mr. HARDIN. I could not be a good witness on that. I have to depend on statistics.

The CHAIRMAN. That is in the record and the record will bear out that is what we obtained in Minnesota and 2 or 3 other places.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. There is one thing I want to put into that picture with reference to the dairy situation that I think has been overlooked. You will recall we had a high peak on cattle, then you will recall we had a low peak on cattle. Dairyman after dairyman told me that, "when that price on the hoof started down I figured I had a loss and I had only one way to recoup and," he said, "let me tell you we started to milk and we threw it into the milk stream by the hundreds of millions of pounds." A lot of folks don't stress that, but that has been multiplied by the hundreds of millions of pounds and is an actual fact that we can't get away from. That proportionate increase probably can never be truly verified but many, many dairymen said it.

Mr. HARDIN. Senator, is that because dairy products we reduced from 90 to 75 percent or because of the decline this beef market made it less attractive to liquidate cattle in the beef market?

Senator SCHOEPPEL. That is right; and they wanted to augment their income so they went to milking.

Mr. HARDIN. The cause and effect is what I am trying to get in. Senator SCHOEPPEL. That is the thing I want to point up.

Senator YOUNG. I would like to put figures on losses on dairy price support in the record. Fiscal year ending 1954, loss in dairy price support program was $130,713,000; for fiscal year ending 1955 last July 1, loss was $440,270,000. If we could spend that much money on all other commodities we would get out of the woods. I don't mean to be critical.

Mr. HARDIN. I am interested because I have given my life to agriculture. I am wondering who is the statistician who made these figures.

Senator YOUNG. These are from the United States Department of Agriculture.

Mr. HARDIN. How do you arrive at the definition of loss on those figures there?

Senator YOUNG. It is mostly a give-away of dairy commodities. Mr. HARDIN. Loss to the Federal Treasury?

Senator YOUNG. Yes.

Mr. HARDIN. We are improving that situation.

Senator YOUNG. Yes; we are. The Department of Agriculture acted fast to get rid of surplus of dairy commodities and I give them credit.

Mr. HARDIN. More people are using dairy products. That is what we should have interest in, more children using milk, more families using milk and the market is consuming more milk than it did.

The CHAIRMAN. May I state for the record that lately, in the last couple of years, the losses on dairy products have been great and up to June 30, 1955, as I recall the amount, it was over $700 million loss on dairy products alone.

Thank you, Mr. Hardin.

Is Mr. Landreneau present?

Please give your name in full, and your occupation, for the record.

STATEMENT OF JESSE LANDRENEAU, VILLE PLATTE, LA.

Mr. LANDRENEAU. I am Jesse Landreneau, of Ville Platte, La., parish of Evangeline, State of Louisiana. I have been on the farm all my life and for the last 14 years I have been farming for myself. I am the father of three children, all of whom are in school.

I am a veteran of World War II, having served in the European theater. I served for 3 years.

I am a small cotton farmer in Evangeline Parish, having an allotment of 5 acres of cotton. I bought the farm which I am now on in 1953 and at that time the cotton allotment was 7 acres. In 1954 it was reduced to 6 acres and in 1955 it was again reduced to 5 acres. I am among the 46 percent of farmers who have 5 to 9.9 acres allotment, but worse than that I am also among the 68 percent of farmers in my parish who have 0 to 9.9 acres. With this small acreage it is almost impossible for a family to live on the farm unless the head of the family also works off the farm.

This distribution chart shows the distribution of the 1955 cottonacreage allotments in our parish. Evangeline Parish is made up of many small farming units and consequently these small farmers have been adjusted every year until they are at a point where they cannot continue to survive on farm income only. These small farmers are forced, as I am, to obtain off-the-farm work when it is available. That in no way is ideal as we are needed on the farm 100 percent of our time.

I believe that these small farmers should be allowed more acreage so that they can pay off mortgages and that these small farmers can remain on the farm.

(Chart referred to by Mr. Landreneau is as follows:)

Distribution of 1955 cotton-acreage allotments

The CHAIRMAN. How many acres do you plant?

Mr. LANDRENEAU. I am down to 5 acres.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about cotton. What is the size of your farm?

Mr. LANDRENEAU. I have 28 acres.

The CHAIRMAN. All in cultivation?

Mr. LANDRENEAU. Part pasture and woods.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you do with the rest?
Mr. LANDRENEAU. Corn and potatoes.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Any questions?

Thank you so much, sir.

Now, Mr. Edward Jones.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD JONES, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, TENNESSEE AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL, MEMPHIS, TENN.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I realize time is a very important item right now and if you will just file this for the record and permit me to make a couple of remarks, that will be all.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine, sir.

(Mr. Jones' prepared statement follows:)

Gentlemen, I am Edward Jones, a farmer from Gibson County, Tenn., and am executive vice president, Tennessee Agricultural Council. We are grateful for an audience with this committee.

The Tennessee Agricultural Council is a young organization, having its charter issued in March 1955, under the Public Welfare Act, to represent farmers and related industries and businesses of Tennessee. Its objects and purposes are to foster, encourage, develop, and promote plans, activities, programs, and other courses of action which will improve the agricultural, industrial, commercial, civic, and economic welfare of the people of Tennessee. The keymen in business and agriculture across the cotton-growing area are fully behind this organization and it speaks for the farmer and businessman.

Tennessee has been hard hit in the cotton acreage reduction program; the reason being that a large number of people are dependent upon cotton as the sole source of their income in Tennessee. Cuts in cotton acreage mean a reduction in related business activity as well as lower farm income.

While special emphasis should be given to small farm hardship cases, we want to call your attention to the fact that there are many hardship cases over and above the 5-acre size farm. In many instances, the tenant on the large farm is equally hard hit. Large numbers of families have left farms because of continued acreage reductions. The farmers of Tennessee are fast losing their source of livelihood. The situation is extremely serious and seems to be getting worse each year. Along with the reduction in farm income, prices paid for the commodities that a farmer must buy have continued to increase by leaps and bounds. There is no indication at present that any relief is in sight for a letup in price increases for the things the farmer must buy to live and make a crop. Likewise, we farmers have no reason to believe that our income will increase, but that it will continue to decline as it has been doing for the past number of years.

It is our opinion that the serious need for some relief must be recognized, and that immediate steps be taken to correct these existing inequities. We endorse the statement of the American Cotton Producer Associates. The first step in solving cotton's problems should be directed toward reestablishing our export markets. This will require a change of policy by our Government, with competitive sales to insure a fair share of the world market for the United States.

Inasmuch as time today is limited, and we know there are others to be heard, we are listing below seven items which in our opinion will correct, to a large

extent, the existing problems of the cotton farmer and the entire cotton industry. We urge your special consideration of these recommendations:

1. Minimum exports of 5 to 5 million bales annually.

2. Sale of cotton for export at competitive world prices to achieve this goal. 3. Increase in acreage for 1957 consistent with an offtake of 14 to 14.5 million bales.

4. Price supports for cotton at 90 percent of parity with recognition that it is desirable to shift the parity formula to a more modern basis. Also, that the base for the loan should more nearly represent the average grade and staple of the crop.

5. A national cotton acreage reserve over and above the national allotment to prevent undue hardships for small farms.

6. Authorization for United States mills to purchase raw cotton equivalent of textiles exported at the export price.

7. Protection for United States mills on the domestic goods market. Mr. JONES. I would like to say I am a farmer in Gibson County, Tenn., and executive vice president of Tennessee Agricultural Council. Since the agricultural council is a young organization and got its charter in march 1954, and we are promoting the interests of agriculture for Tennessee farmers, I would like to say we endorse in its entirety the statement Mr. Cortright made this morning regarding the American Cotton Producers Associates and also that in Tennessee we have a world of small farmers and we have been terrifically hard hit with our acreage reductions in cotton, although we are a diversified State, growing many other commodities. I think Mr. Chairman, with that statement, plus what I have here, it will be sufficient.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Mr. Connell, give your name in full for the record, and your occupa

tion.

STATEMENT OF WALTER CONNELL, BOSSIER PARISH, LA.

Mr. CONNELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Walter Connell from Bossier Parish in northwest Louisiana. I represent no organization. I speak and am glad to do so as an individual, but these ideas that I have listed here on the current cotton problem and a possible solution to them have been discussed cracker-barrel style among various farmers in our area and we have discussed these problems for many months, and I have tried, as various ideas that I thought were sensible were expressed, to write them down and draw them up into the form of a plan to which there are eight points. They are not necessarily in the order of their importance.

No. 1: We would like to endorse what has been said relative to changing bases from 7 to 1-inch Middling. But we would like to see the support price of 1-inch Middling and lower have to suffer any penalty discounts while any increases be given to grades and staples above 1-inch Middling.

We would like to see the Congress enable, authorize, and direct the Secretary of Agriculture to eliminate within a given time, say 5 years, all cotton considered surplus. I heard today that Senator Anderson, of New Mexico, intends to introduce a bill along that line in the coming session.

Now we would have this cotton surplus disposed of in foreign markets only, not necessarily overseas markets, but foreign markets, for dollars, if possible or for currency in that country in case they had something we needed to buy with their currency or in outright