My purpose in coming before your committee today is to urge Congress to take no action to place cotton or any livestock, for that matter, under a pricesupport program which would result in curtailed production. I do not know that Congress has seriously considered such program, but I do know that varies, from time to time, with every drop in cattle or hog prices have proposed Government price supports and a limiting of herds in production. With all of the earnestness at my command, I urge you, gentlemen, to not further aggravate the problem by putting livestock under Government restrictions and regulations. This would only mean an additional headache to the Government and more redtape for the farmer and would not be a real solution.

I believe time will take care of our livestock problem. It is true that prices have fallen while production costs have increased, but it is also true that the per capita consumption of beef has risen to the highest per capita consumption in our history. The Department of Agriculture tells us that there are approximately 94 million head of cattle in the United States today. They also estimate that by 1965 we will need 101 million head with the increased population to maintain the present per capita consumption, which is 79 pounds per person annually.

Further, with the increasing population, 108 million head will be needed by 1975 by a conservative estimate. I believe, gentlemen, this will take care of the present livestock dilemma much better than Government interference,

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Gardner, would you mind answering a few questions, please.

Mr. GARDNER. With Mr. Warner's help.

The CHAIRMAN. How many acres do you farm, Mr. Gardner?
Mr. WARNER. 2,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever planted more than a hundred acres of cotton?

Mr. WARNER. I have planted up to 150.

The CHAIRMAN. When was that? What year?

Mr. WARNER. I believe it was around 1935.

The CHAIRMAN. When did you quit growing cotton?

Mr. WARNER. I finally completed the quitting of cotton last year. The CHAIRMAN. Last year?

Mr. WARNER. There are two things that enter into the production of cotton. It is labor and also the Government program. I was allotted a certain number of acres; I couldn't plant any and turned them in. I think today I don't have any acreage.

The CHAIRMAN. You actually quit growing cotton?

Mr. WARNER. I have quit growing cotton.

The CHAIRMAN. Because of the labor situation?

Mr. WARNER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I had several witnesses to appear before us who said that one in particular, in Georgia, I think--he had been reduced to 3 acres. When I asked a few questions I found out he had done what you did, had abandoned the growing of cotton. It is not because of the program that you did not get the acreage in cotton; it is because you quit of your own volition.

Mr. WARNER. I brought that out.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. I wish to say that the consensus of opinion that we have so far received from the cattle growers of the country is in line with your statement here that they don't want any price-support program on cattle. I don't think you need fear that Congress is going to put it on if we are to judge from the evidence that has been so far produced before the committee.

Any further questions? If not, we thank you very much.

The next witness on the list is Mr. G. D. Bell. Give your name in full and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. BELL, CALLISON, S. C.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is George D. Bell. I own and operate a farm at Callison in the lower section of Greenwood County, within 2 miles of where my father and grandfather owned and operated farms. For five generations or more my people have been farmers.

While I am a member of the Grange, I appear before you today speaking for no organization. Mr. Chairman, I know the farm conditions in my community and of my friends and neighbors. These people are family-sized farmers, trying desperately to survive this present farm depression in an economy manipulated by the Government from top to bottom.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you please tell us what is the average sized family farm in your area?

Mr. BELL. I would say, Mr. Chairman, they range anywhere from 50 to possibly 300 acres, 250 acres; something like that.

The CHAIRMAN. In cultivation?

Mr. BELL. No, sir; I mean farms.

The CHAIRMAN. Everything?

Mr. BELL. Timber and all; average sized farm.

The CHAIRMAN. What I would like to find out is what is the average sized family unit.

Mr. BELL. In total acres in the farm?

The CHAIRMAN. In cultivation.

Mr. BELL. I would say from 40 to 50.

The CHAIRMAN. That is in cultivation.

Mr. BELL. That is about right.

The CHAIRMAN. In addition to that, they have pastureland and woodland.

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How much would that amount to?

Mr. BELL. I would say the average sized family farm would consist of approximately 150 acres.

The CHAIRMAN. That would include 40 to 50 acres in cultivation and the rest in woodland and pasture.

Mr. BELL. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you know whether or not that is about the average sized farm for South Carolina, throughout the State? Mr. BELL. I would not.

The CHAIRMAN. You would not know?

Mr. BELL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. BELL. Our farmers are generally unorganized. What little organization they have is loosely knit, usually with no united and often divergent purposes. The farmers have no high-priced public relations men to tell their true story to Congress as have other organizations.

We have no way of informing the people that our net income, countrywide, has dropped 27.5 percent since 1948 and has rapidly fallen since the spring of this year; while, during the same period, wages have increased and business profits have reached an all-time high. We have no way of telling the people the consumer pays a smaller percentage of his income for food and the farmer receives a smaller part of each dollar paid than ever before in history.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what this is today?

Mr. BELL. The average income that the farmer, the part the farmer got 9 years ago was 52 cents on the dollar and today it is 42 cents.

The CHAIRMAN. Forty cents is the latest figure, 40 cents out of the consumer's dollar.

Mr. BELL. It is going down fast.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. BELL. We constantly hear a howl about the large farm surpluses the Government has in warehouses over the country. I honestly believe the few hundred million dollars invested in cotton, under the pricesupport program, is just as essential to the security of our country as the more than $100 billion invested in war material, about which we hear nothing. It looks like it depends on whose foot the shoe fits.

The manufacturers and their labor are making more than they have ever made before and the farmer is making less. And these manufacturers generally receive cost-plus contracts while the farmers get well under 100 percent of parity.

About the only time the farmer's side gets presented to the public is when some Congressman or Senator with the moral fortitude to espouse an unpopular but just cause uses the congressional forum to speak the truth. These courageous men may never hear from us, but you can rest assured that we are grateful and won't forget you. We don't have the opportunity of appearing at your hearings in Washington and we do appreciate especially your coming here to give us an opportunity to tell our story. We feel honored that a Senator from South Carolina is one of your committee.

The CHAIRMAN. He is a mighty valuable member to the committee. In connection with what you were saying about publicity harmful to the farmer you may not know that in the past 2 or 3 years we have had, I presume, the farmers of the Nation blackened, as it were, in trying to show the cost of these programs. I well remember in 1953 when the present administration took office we had before our committee the question of price supports. We had nothing else before our committee but that. And yet a statement was made by the present Secretary of Agriculture—I don't think he did it through, shall I say, meanness, but I will be charitable to him and say he might not have known any better-the statement made showed that, or it attempted to show that the Government lost from June 1933 when these programs started, until that day when he appeared before us, over $16 billion, but every farm program was included in that cost-soil conservation, REA, and everything else.

The next day I, then chairman of the committee, asked for the facts and what did it show? I am not here to criticize anybody, you understand, but I don't like the most important segment of our whole economy, the farmer, criticized. Nobody likes that. Let me point out to you-and this is as of June 30, 1955, this last June 30-taking in all the support programs we have had, these so-called basics which include cotton, corn, wheat, peanuts, rice, tobacco, the entire loss during all that period was only $392,648,091, with cotton showing a profit to the Government of $267,243,797.

Now, that was the picture. On all of your losses covering perishables and in that is included this tremendous loss that we suffered on Irish potatoes, almost a half-billion dollars, almost a half-billion

in that time the entire loss, excluding the wartime consumer subsidy costs which was in effect charged to the farmer, was much lower than represented. Do you remember that during the war there was a subsidy paid so that the consumer could get food cheaper? Do you remember that?

Mr. BELL. Yes, I remember that.

The CHAIRMAN. Even that was charged, but after we took that off, the figures as of June 30, 1955-that is, this year-the entire pricesupport program on every article, everything we supported, was only $2,117,006,646. That includes, as I said, the amount of loss on Irish potatoes and poultry, eggs, dairy products. Dairy products alone out of this huge sum-I say "huge" because it is big-was over $700 million. Compare this miserly small sum to what our Government spent for industry, to let industry go from peace to war, and you might get a figure as much as $55 billion, but you never heard any hue and cry about that, not a word. So today the farmer is in a bad way.

You are saying here that they don't organize like other segments of industry do. Well, it is my hope that some day they will organize. I hope you can see what could happen to labor, to industry, and everything else. What would happen to all your cotton mills in this State if the cotton farmer were to get out of business? What would happen to all of the canning plants throughout the Nation if the producers of food were to call a halt? Did you ever stop to think of that?

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir: I have.

The CHAIRMAN. What would happen to our armed services? What could a soldier do without food and fiber? Where would he be? Now that is why this committee is going around this country. I have five little grandsons and a granddaughter. I haven't seen them this whole year more than 2 or 3 days at one time, but I want a good life for them. Gentlemen, this is a serious problem we are facing right now. The producers of our very life's blood, food and fiber, are in trouble. Unless Congress does something about it the whole nation will suffer, and not just the farmer.

That is why the best heads have to get together; we must forget politics and we must forget partisanship. It doesn't make any difference if it is a Republican or Democrat, when we sustain losses they are both hurt. I hope that within the next 2 months at the most, after this Congress meets, we will be able to present to the Congress with your help that is why we are here some form of program that will make available to the farmer his just portion in this economy.

You know, I find in all these hearings that the average farmer would not mind nearly so much receiving low prices if the consumer would get the benefit of that low price, or if what he buys goes down as does what he sells, but he is in a pinch, in a squeeze, and that is what we hove found all over the country. I have attended every meeting and the facts show that what the farmers buys is up and what he sells is down and the consumer does not benefit a thin dime from these lower farm prices. That is where the trouble lies. If there is anything we can do to solve that you can expect that we shall try our best.

If any of you, whether you are on this list or not, can help us in

solving this problem, I think it is essential that you stand up and speak.

Proceed, sir.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I would like now to tell you the conditions in my county. I live in Greenwood County and the conditions in Greenwood County in my opinion are prevalent over all the counties, certainly of the Piedmont section.

In 1919 Greenwood County had 71,000 acres planted in cotton. To meet boll-weevil conditions that hit us in 1920-21, we reduced our acreage in 1929 to 41,500.

Mr. DORN. Voluntarily.

Mr. BELL. Yes, we had to change our methods to meet boll-weevil conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. That was in 1929?

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. In 1939, partly by voluntary reduction and partly by acreage control we had 19,100 acres. Our cotton acreage has since been reduced by acreage control to less than 5,000 acres, which is either 1948 or 1949, one year we had 9,000 acres in cotton and then the other year we had something over 9,000 acres.

Now the gentleman I was talking to who was supposed to know said you would have to drop to the 1948 year.

Mr. BELL. I was asking about what it would be next year and this is the information he gave me.

Our cotton allotment acreage of 1956 will be determined by dropping the first year of the base period when over 9,000 acres were allotted and substituting in lieu thereof the year 1954, when 4,485 acres were allotted. In addition to this substantial decrease in allotted acreage brought about by a change in the years comprising the base period will be added whatever cut in acreage the Secretary of Agriculture or Congress might see fit to make it.

This decrease from 71,000 acres in 1919 to an estimated 4,000 acres or less in 1956 in a section with a history of approximately 200 years in cotton production is most astounding. Cotton has always been the chief money crop of our farmers since 1790, and is today.

This 95-percent cut in our basic money crop has made it impossible for family-sized farms to survive.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the law as it now stands the base is the last 5 years, but 1949 is not included.

Mr. BELL. He did give me the right information then.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I am sorry to say.

Mr. BELL. Many of our farmers have been forced away from the farms to seek other employment. There cannot be a further acreage reduction without affecting those still operating a family-sized farm. The further reduction of the cotton acreage in my county will make it imperative to unite these small farms into big operations, thus destroying altogether the family-sized farmers who have contributed so much to the stability of America. I tell you, gentlemen, that the family-sized farm is just as American as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the Constitution, and should not be allowed to pass from the American scene.

Gentlemen, our rural schools have gone, the post offices and churches are going. They are taking away our fourth-class rural post offices,