Mr. TERRY. Yes, sir.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. What would you do about curtailing chickens? How would you do that?

Mr. TERRY. We have production histories on crops. I don't know about chickens or livestock.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. What would you do about fruit?

Mr. TERRY. The market share would have to be set up for those people.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. How would you control production on that to see they kept it down?

Mr. TERRY. In our sugar business, to use this as an example, we are given a proportionate share, an acreage share. In addition, I think we ought to have a proportionate market share.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. For fruit?

Mr. TERRY. For all products so that for our particular share of the market we will get a hundred percent of parity. If we are efficient enough, if we are good enough producers to produce on an open world market, this in effect is the two-price system I am suggesting, if we are good enough to produce and compete on that other we can go up to our acreage share which would be a good rotation share. Senator SCHOEPPEL. In other words, what you are saying is in effect the two-price system, but to cover all production from the farms.

Mr. TERRY. Yes, sir.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I hope you have thought about the administrative features of all that, but I appreciate having your views. I wanted to clarify my own understanding of what you said.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. LaHaye, please. Give your name in full, please.

STATEMENT OF ELVIN LaHAYE, VILLE PLATTE, LA.

Mr. LAHAYE. I am Elvin LaHaye from Evangeline Parish. I have been a cotton and rice farmer the past 23 years. Our situation in Evangeline Parish is very critical because our farming units are very small. For instance, in 1954 we had 1,147 rice-farm contracts planting 66,038 acres. In 1955 we had 936 contracts that planted only 44,384 acres. This is an average of 47 per farm contract.

The CHAIRMAN. How many large farmers are there in that class? Mr. LAHAYE. You have only 7 in the whole parish; 1 percent equals 7 farmers.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. LAHAYE. It is a known fact that into your rice investment you have to have at least $25,200 in tools, tractors, trucks, et cetera, to make a complete rice crop per farm. So it is impossible for us to continue with acreage reductions without losing a large number of our farmers or losing a large portion of their farms.

As an example, I am part owner of a 2,552-acre farm and in 1953 there were 20 producers planting 136 acres of cotton and about 1,010 acres of rice. În 1954 we had 17 producers planting 91 acres of cotton and 990 rice. In 1950 we had both rice and cotton deductions, and had 15 producers planting 75 acres cotton and 797 acres of rice. If acreage reduction continues you can readily see that we will soon

have very few producers with our large investment in equipment and many empty houses.

The CHAIRMAN. That land wasn't planted?

Mr. LAHAYE. Yes, generally I have it in lespedeza or hay or as laid-off land.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. LAHAYE. Pasture it with cattle.

I feel that we should have a fortified program so that our farmers acreages would be controlled only for domestic programs with price support at 90 percent of parity, and be allowed to produce as they see fit for world market without controls or price support.

I also feel that the grading of our commodities should not be based only on United States standards, but on an international standard where the grade would be recognized in markets all over the world. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(Chart submitted by Mr. LaHaye follows:)

STATEMENT OF ELIOT BURNHAM, EDITOR, WELSH CITIZEN,

WELSH, LA.

Mr. BURNHAM. I am Eliot Burnham, owner and publisher of the Welsh Citizen weekly newspaper located in the rice area of southwest Louisiana, than which there are few more grassrooty places. I would like to make several points briefly.

The CHAIRMAN. Are they new?

Mr. BURNHAM. Several are, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give us those that are new to save repetition?

Mr. BURNHAM. The average farmer, who, incidentally, stays away in droves from meetings like this, we have 6 from our parish, likes the sound of 90 percent of parity instead of a lower figure and most start to scream when you say that the Eisenhower-Benson flexiblesupport program will allow support to drop to 75 percent of parity for the 1956-57 rice crop.

If acres permitted to be planted were to remain the same, then the farmer would naturally prefer 90 percent to any lower figure.

Current legislation states, however, that the Secretary of Agriculture must reduce acreage of rice nationally if production exceeds demand by more than 10 percent.

The limiting factor on demand is price. Under the support system, we have lost a large percentage of our foreign markets because of price and because of the international policies regarding sales of rice which the State Department has interposed.

Until the price of at least the surplus portion of the United States rice becomes low enough to meet world market prices, some 50 percent of our crop will be absorbed in the United States and traditional market outlets and the other half will become surplus which compounds our problems.

As a newspaper, we contacted rice authorities ranging from the heads of every large area rice milling company to the United States Department of Agriculture and have statements wherein the lowest estimate we got is that the export or surplus portion of our crop would sell competitively at 65 percent of 1955's parity. This leads me to recommend that a 2-price system with high supports for the domestic portion of our crop and from 65 to 75 percent of parity for the surplus portion be adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you can't sell at 65 percent?

Mr. BURNHAM. Under a two-price system I would say high support for domestic portions and get what you can for the rest.

The CHAIRMAN. You wouldn't expect the Government to take it over, what you couldn't sell at 65 percent?

Mr. BURNHAM. I would not. I believe if you keep supports on the whole rice crop at 85 or 90 percent of parity that you will kill off export sales. We have virtually done that already. Conversely, I believe that a two-price system will enable the sale of more ricewhich is what we are after because it will allow more acres to be planted when surplus rice becomes export rice.

Senator LONG. Might I ask a question? Is it true that these foreign countries do not fear as much the American farmers selling their rice on the export market as they do the Commodity Credit Corporation on the theory that if the the farmer sells the rice he will not dump it, rather he will shop around and try to get the best price?

Mr. BURNHAM. I would think that is true. The State Department in hearings earlier this year covered the point very strongly that we could be accused of dumping. I think with a floor on the export portion that we could not be accused of dumping and I think if the floor is low enough the export portion will sell.

Most farmers in my area like high supports just fine-but they think that acreage cutbacks just plain stink. What too many of them do not see is that they cannot have supports in the 85 to 90 percent of parity range on all their crops and no further acreage cutbacks. A two-price system would give them high supports on at least about half of their crop and establish a support floor on the balance.

Hence, the question that I believe that every farmer should ask when he is offered-by Republicans or Democrats-90 percent of parity is "On how many acres?" Nationally, as you all know, a cut this year reduced 1954's 100 acres to 78. Based on early estimates, this 78 acres could become as low as 54 acres if we were to plant rice only for domestic and traditional market consumption. Legislation limits this to 66 next year, compared to 1954's 100 acres.

It is mathematically obvious-with amazingly fixed basic costs when he plants 54, 78, or 100 acres, that the rice farmer will do better with

a 2-price system planting on 100 acres than he will with as low as 54 acres at 90 percent of parity.

This very fact escapes many rice farmers. Those who will work it out with pencil and paper very quickly convince themselves. Our trouble is that too many farmers won't figure it out.

One other important fact colors my thinking. In Jeff Davis Parish there are 1,400 rice farmers. Of these 1,400 rice farmers, just over 500 farm less than 100 acres of rice. The economic repercussions of further acreage cuts which may force these 500 rice families out of the rice farming business are immense in an area which is virtually dependent on rice for its economy. That affects also the businessman, the man who sells all types of services. To survive as rice farmers, their only out is to plant all their acres even if they must get less per barrel for rice than they do today.

When Secretary of Agriculture Benson announces the 1955-56 national acreage allotment-as he must-by the end of this December, if it directs another substantial cut in acreage, the rice farmers may wake up to the fact that their only out is to price some of their rice lower so that it will sell in foreign markets so, in turn, they may plant all their acres instead of progressively less.

Let me leave you with three thoughts:

First, if you are going to give rice farmers 90 percent of parity, let them know how much more acreage must be cut. Better yet, give them a two-price support system so that they can be in a position to help themselves by having rice which will sell competitively on export markets.

Second, remember that acreage cutbacks will not cripple the bigger rice farmers but that they will slaughter the little farmers. Many persons would like to get the little rice farmer out of the rice business, but my area would be badly hurt in its purchasing power if these smaller farmers are forced out. Every merchant in Welsh would feel it even worse than they did from January through July of this

year.

Third and last, blanket legislation on the six so-called basic crops may not be your smartest move. Let's give rice what it needs and peanuts what they need.

Unless we let the rice farmers grow rice on their acres and get the support level to the point where that will be possible, you probably will be able to buy the Welsh Citizen and a lot of other business in Welsh in a couple of years for peanuts.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I have a question. Do you suggest that some of your areas are reflective of smaller type farmers? Do you suggest that this committee propose or work out some legislation curtailing these big operators of, say, cotton, rice, and wheat?

Mr. BURNHAM. No, very definitely not, Senator. I believe that the smaller farmer has come to the point where if he is cut any further that he is in very definite danger of being forced out of business.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I can agree with you wholeheartedly because it affects wheat, and many corn farmers. Therefore, as I understand, you would advocate when it gets down to these smaller units on what you would determine to be a self-sustaining unit then there should be a limit to which it could not be cut-or would you consider some cost factor there?

Mr. BURNHAM. I didn't cover that at all. I think that, of course, the larger farmer can stand a cut a lot more than a man with 5 or 10 acres. I believe the solution is as stated to get the support on at least the export portion low enough so that that will move. If you keep cutting acres you are going to put them out of business. The only way to keep from cutting acres further and crippling the smaller farmers is expand the export market. That can only be done, I believe, by lowering support so that it is not attractive to the farmer to put it under CCC.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I know you have given thought to this, but do you recognize that under your two-price system, with the surpluses we have accumulated, do you not think we would still have to have acreage controls until these surpluses are worked down?

Mr. BURNHAM. I think so. One point not brought out, however, is that world supply of rice according to statistics prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture and the Rice Millers Association, show that only 98 percent of the demand is grown each year. Of the rice grown in the world the United States is supplying only 2 percent. We are a drop in the bucket. We export 13 percent of the rice which is exported. If you took that 98 percent and added United States production of 2 percent, we have virtually a full year's rice on hand belonging to the Government, even if you added that 2 percent to the 98 percent you haven't gone over world demand.

That demand only exists, however, at a price and so long as you give the farmers 90 percent of parity on all their crop instead of selling that what is now excess rice cheaply, they will put in the hands of the CCC because at dollars and cents they will make more. Senator YOUNG. If supports on rice are lowered next year to 75 or 76 percent of parity as suggested, will that take care of your export problem?

Mr. BURNHAM. I think that is a very key question and a very good one. The farmers in my area feel as far as I can evaluate that that will not move all of any given year's crop that you would have to go lower than that on at least the export portion.

Senator YoUNG. How much lower?

Mr. BURNHAM. According to the survey I made for issue of the paper we got estimates from 75 down to 65 percent as being the point at which our rice would become competitive in the world market. There are some I might add in all fairness who represent some of my people that say no matter how much we lower the support price or rather the price of United States rice, that the countries with whom we compete will always go underneath us. I personally do not believe that is true.

Senator YOUNG. Could a rice farmer make money at 65 percent support price?

Mr. BURNHAM. On his whole crop?

Senator YOUNG. Yes. Could he break even if he got the equivalent of 65 percent of parity?

Mr. BURNHAM. On his whole crop, I am not the man to answer that question. I think the answer is "No."

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burnham, don't you think that even on the 2price system the problem that faces us now is the disposition of this huge 1 year's advance supply of rice we now have?

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes.