The average production of Iowa is, say, in the neighborhood of 50 bushels per acre, 2,000 bushels of corn. We set up a parity of production as well as parity supports and we say we give him top support on the first 2,000 bushels, then if he has a larger corn acreage he gets a reduced support on the next thousand, and a reduced support on the next thousand, and the next, until finally the Government support price is down below the world price; and then the man who has that excess production can sell it at the world price.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think he can produce it and compete with peon labor in Mexico, let us say, and Brazil and other countries of the world?

Mr. BLACKETT. Yes; I think we can produce to compete with anybody.

The CHAIRMAN. You had better look into that. I do not think he

can.

Mr. BLACKETT. If we don't, Mr. Chairman, what right has a man got to get at the taxpayers' expense a full parity on 800 acres or a thousand acres? Are the taxpayers required to maintain for that man a Cadillac standard of living, the man who doesn't need it, who will never be hurt if they don't have it? If we paid more attention, in my opinion, to the smaller man, we would have the money to handle some of these things.

The CHAIRMAN. I have been for that ever since I have been in the Senate; to try to work out a plan to help the small farmer, and so far we have not been able to get to it.

You talk about Franklin D. Roosevelt. Let me tell you a bit of history. When I first came to the Senate in 1937, the law that was enacted by the previous Congress had been declared unconstitutional, I think, in the spring of 1937. Well, it was Franklin D. Roosevelt who sent for the members of the Committee on Agriculture, and I was privileged to be a member at that time. This was in the fall of 1937. It was because of the conversation between the committee and the President that a subcommittee of seven, of which I was a member, proceeded all over the country to try to get an answer to the problem. The President suggested we go around and see what we could do, and as a result of his suggestion we held hearings all over the country.

When we returned in November of 1937 with these hearings, the President called a session of Congress, as I remember it, on November 15 of 1937, and from the hearings that were held the present act known as the 1938 act was born. He passed on that; he agreed to it, and

Mr. BLACKETT. You probably know more about it than I do. All I know is what he told me.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not want to disturb you or say anything about your talk with Mr. Roosevelt.

Mr. BLACKETT. I am stating what he told me.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roosevelt sent for the committee and suggested that we go around the country and hold hearings in the hope that from the hearings we would get a bill from the grassroots. So we did come back with a bill. He signed it and that became the law.

It was all intended to do some of the things you mentioned here, but somehow the war came on and simply did not permit the act to work probably as it should. World War II had the effect of dis

turbing the program, not making it work as intended, and during the war we amended it in order to produce more food. Our Government asked us to produce more food and farmers responded to it. That may be the reason why the farmers find themselves today in the plight they are. They were asked by our Government to produce more food. They did produce that food.

I believe that since our Government bountifully aided industry in getting from war to peace that it would be right, probably, to ask the Government to put the farmer back and let him start on an even keel again and get out of this plight he is in.

Mr. BLACKETT. Couldn't we give a start by figuring out what is a livable, practical acreage in these crops and set that

The CHAIRMAN. You know these hearings have demonstrated that even in States, also counties, you have a difference in the size of the farms; some you have irrigated, others dry lands.

If we had only Georgia to deal with, or maybe we might chip in South Carolina, the problem could be solved overnight. But when you try to draft a bill affecting 48 States, that is where the difficulty

comes in.

Mr. BLACKETT. It is not child's play, but other industries have had depressions besides the farm industry; steel industry, automobile industry. Taxpayers were not called upon to support United States Steel or Ford Motor or General Motors.

I am going on the assumption that as a taxpayer I am perfectly willing to be taxed to help the small man that actually needs it.

The CHAIRMAN. This great plan you now speak of that is causing distress to the farmers was a result of the war; will you agree to that? Mr. BLACKETT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. We spent $55 billion to help industry to go back to peace. Why should we not spend a few million dollars to get the farmer back?

Mr. BLACKETT. I am in favor of it. I am in favor of paying higher parity on production of the small, family-sized farm but I am not in favor of supporting people that don't need it. That is one of the unexpected trends that came out of this legislation.

As I say, many times you pass a piece of legislation with the best intentions in the world, but a lot of surprising things happen in time. The CHAIRMAN. The law we enacted, sir, at first I do not believe had a fair chance because, as I said, of World War II. It put a lot of people in the farming business who should not have gone into it. As these hearings will show, we found that many doctors went into the business, many dentists, many people with money who should not have gone into it, and that may be the cause of some of our trouble. But how would you stop that?

Mr. BLACKETT. I think one of the first approaches I would suggest is that we give the farmer the same freedom of marketing that we have given some of the other industries of the United States. The CHAIRMAN. He has it. Nothing to stop him.

Mr. BLACKETT. Except the State Department.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be true, but

Mr. BLACKETT. I meant freedom of marketing throughout the world.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. BLACKETT. You could make a logical argument as to why the State Department should govern the policymaking of all the different departments of the Cabinet-and they have done a pretty good job of it but why shouldn't the Department of Agriculture and the farmer be given the same liberty and freedom that other businesses have to market goods anywhere in the world?

The CHAIRMAN. I am in thorough agreement with that. The only difficulty-I think I know something about it-is simply this: We in Congress have tried on many occasions to work out a proposal whereby our surplus commodities could be sold for the currency of the country that agreed to buy it, but when we came to use the currency of that country to buy commodities from that country that we needed they said "just a minute. You need rubber, you need tin, you need this and that. We won't accept our own currency; we want your dollars." What would you do in that case?

Mr. BLACKETT. I would barter on any basis you can to sell your goods.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you be surprised how we are stymied in our effort to use the currencies of the countries where we buy commodities to buy the things they have so we can stockpile?

Mr. BLACKETT. Who is stymying you?

The CHAIRMAN. I would hate to say, but the United Kingdom has a lot to do with it.

Mr. BLACKETT. I think you are getting to the root of it. They have run our foreign department a good many years.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree somewhat but not entirely. The United Kingdom has had a lot to do with it because they control this soft currency pool as you know.

Mr. BLACKETT. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And when we go to a country like the Malay States and we have a lot of surplus commodities they would like to buy, or we have a lot that Australia would like to buy, we buy wool from Australia and then the United Kingdom says "you have to pay us dollars for that. We will not accept the pound."

Mr. BLACKETT. I would like to inject this thought: That until we figure out some minimum acreage for the smaller fellow we are going to-I think this, a lot of this acreage control appears to be a kind of frustration because of the tremendous increase in production per acre. Now I know the Department of Agriculture talked about I think reducing acreage from 18 million to 17 million acres. I think the farmers here have demonstrated that it won't be very many years until we can produce the present requirements on 10 million acres. So each year how do you whittle it down if you have a straight acrossthe-board reduction? I am not against the big operator who has been making a bonanza out of this in past years. I only say it should'nt be done at the expense of the little fellow who gets reduced to such a point that he can't operate.

That is why I would suggest that we look into the possibility of a graduated farm-price support and a graduated acreage.

The CHAIRMAN. That is on our agenda. That suggestion was made many places.

Mr. BLACKETT. I believe if we do I think we can combine something that is economically sound with a principle that is morally right.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Are there any questions?
Mr. McClanahan, please.

STATEMENT OF A. E. McCLANAHAN, NASHVILLE, TENN.

Mr. McCLANAHAN. I am A. E. McClanahan and I am a dairy farmer at Nashville, Tenn. I might say, Senator, that I was told to come down here to make this statement but when I got down I understand that I should have gone to Raleigh, for which I deeply apologize, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right. We can just as well hear you here.

Mr. McCLANAHAN. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. McCLANAHAN. I am A. E. McClanahan, a dairy farmer of 712 McGavock Lane, Nashville, Tenn. I have made my living for the past 43 years from dairying. For part of this time my father and I operated a retail dairy. For the past 14 years I have sold milk wholesale to the Nashville grade A market. I own a registered Jersey herd of 45 cows. I have no other business or professional in

come.

I am president of the Davidson County, Tenn., Farm Bureau. I am a member of the dairy committee of the American Farm Bureau Federation. I helped organize and was vice president for 9 years of Nashville Milk Producers, Inc., a milk-marketing cooperative.

I know from experience what it is for a farmer to lose everything that he has because of a depression. I am greatly disturbed about the present plight of farmers. The familiar farm danger signals are appearing too frequently at the present time. Farm prices continue to decline while everything the farmer has to buy continues to advance. Farm mortgages are increasing. The Farm Credit Administration just announced this month that farm mortgages for the first 6 months of this year are up $300 million as compared with the first 6 months of 1954. Also, this report shows that the average farm mortgage has increased from $5,990 last year to $7,050 this year.

In my State milk cow prices have dropped from their peak of $199, State average in 1952, to $98 in August this year. This represents a decrease in inventory of $70,070,000. This is farm capital that has crumbled away. In addition, using average annual milk production per cow, Tennessee dairymen are taking an annual loss in milk prices totaling $50,591,950. Frankly I do not see how dairymen can take such a licking and still keep their chins up.

I would like to point out that the Nashville milk market and four other of the larger markets in Tennessee are under Federal milk orders. We, in Tennessee, are strong for the Federal milk-order program, but we do wish that the Department of Agriculture would realize that the Southeast did not contribute to the surplus dairy product situation and be more lenient in their pricing. In my State

we consume just about all the milk produced, while some States export as much as 80 percent of their product. The Nashville price at the present time is $4.92 per hundredweight, 4 percent milk. The CHAIRMAN. Did you say 4-percent milk?

Mr. McCLANAHAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that not the way above the average?

Mr. McCLANAHAN. Yes, sir, but most of the places in the country, especially in the northern part, it is 3.5.

The CHAIRMAN. Some is 3.7. Do you have to charge more for the milk at 4 percent?

Mr. MCCLANAHAN. No, that is what we have to sell it, that is what we get paid on.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it fixed in your order that the milk must grade 4 percent?

Mr. McCLANAHAN. It is not fixed in the order, but that is the general practice.

The CHAIRMAN. A suggestion has been made that all milk sold should have at least 4 percent fat in order to prevent the surplus of butter we have. In other words, would you agree that it would be a good way to sell the milk and the butterfat whole instead of selling it to the Government; that if the farmer tried to do that he might help himself?

Mr. McCLANAHAN. Owning a Jersey herd, Senator, I would say I would like for it to be sold with 4 percent fat, but the boys that sell it want to sell a 3.5 milk.

The CHAIRMAN. By "the boys" you mean those who retail it?

Mr. McCLANAHAN. That is correct; not the farmers. We have no farmers retailing milk on our market.

The CHAIRMAN. It strikes me something should be done to make the boys sell it at 4 percent.

Mr. McCLANAHAN. I heartily agree.

In Tennessee, and these are official figures, there are 15,236 less farm owners than there were 5 years ago. This is an 11.4-percent decrease. I may be wrong, but it is my opinion that farm ownership represents the greatest training school for the American way of life in this Nation today. Few, if any, of the evil isms too prevalent in this country today are found among farm owners.

There is another phase of agricultural ownership that has wide application to the stability of this country and that is that argiculture and agriculture alone can take care of its own workers in a serious depression.

I hate to see the farm problem becoming a political football. I wish that we could arrive at some fair plan, but after all the farm problems as we know it today is relatively new. So it is likely that many attempts and changes will be made before a final and reasonable solution is reached.

The trouble with farmers today is largely the result of wars and the unfair treatment accorded farmers by Government. Farmers were asked to produce more and more of the essential foods during the war years. This they did in the face of tremendous difficulties. Incidentally, there were no strikes among farmers during those years,

either.

Now, you can't step up farm production over 10 years and then shut it down like an industrial plant. Industry was helped by the ad