of production. This payment should not be less than parity for the land.

I resent the fact that the price of good international relations rests primarily on the farmer. While the administration and newspapers holler to high heaven about surpluses, we permit wheat, feed grains, and even pork to be imported into this country, and then give protection to monopolistic corporations who manufacture most of our durable goods through high tariffs and subsidies.

Another thing I would like to bring out is that farmers today are living on their depreciation, which has been brought up.

In drawing up a new agriculture law, I would like to point out that it is my sincere belief that we must recognize two facts: one, that the farmer sells in a controlled market and not a free market, a market controlled by those monopolies who process, distribute, and so forth; and they are doing it for their own materialistic greed, and not for the welfare of human beings.

Second, that the so-called law of supply and demand has never set the price of farm commodities. We have seasons of the year of divine origin, but they have been used by the monopolies to lower the prices of products when the farmer has them, and then raising them when they are in their possession, and the consumer still pays.

This parity should be based on the old parity formula and guarantied by the Federal Government.

We, as farmers, are no longer fooled by the modern parity, which is hypocrisy, and would not give us parity at all.

I would like to make one more point, and that is that the conservation program is one that is very essential, and another that laws must be written so clearly that we cannot have a reoccurrence of a Benson. I thank you.

Senator YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I must ask one question.

The imports of foreign agricultural commodities are less under the present administration than they were under the previous administration; is that not a fact?

Mr. REECK. Well, either way, I still do not think that under any circumstances should they permit it when we have protection for all other industries.

Senator YOUNG. It is a policy, I think, that has been developed in the State Department, and they have not changed their thinking in many years.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a statement. First, I think the statement with reference to the Secretary of Agriculture, while unnecessary, was thoroughly ungenerous.

The wool situation has no resemblance at all to any question of surplus production.

Wool and sugar are the two deficit crops, and the wool program was not enacted by the Secretary, but was enacted by a substantial majority of both Houses of Congress, of which I was one.

There is no comparison whatever between a deficit crop which is in a strategic position of great importance to us, and the production of which we need to increase, and the crops which are on surplus production, and which we do need to cut down in amount. [Applause.] (The prepared statement of Mr. Reeck follows:)

My net income: 1953, $2,239.23; 1954, $1,599.24; 1955-net will be less than 1954.

I know that this financial and economical distress that I as a farmer am in, is due to the sliding-scale farm-price program of the present Republican administration. I have never slid upward, and the only way one can slide is down, and that is exactly what has happened to farm prices. I am a firm believer in parity support prices and also that parity is not a high, but a fair price. I believe the Government has always been there for the purpose of protection of people, and the farmers must be protected from the pompous and predatory monopolies who process, distribute, and speculate with the food we raise for the consumers. These monopolies, who in their materialistic greed have lowered the prices farmers receive while still making the consumers pay the same price. Thus, the Government should support prices at parity, not a percent of parity. On certain storeable commodities, such as wheat and corn, the loan and storage system is a good one and it was successful under a Secretary of Agriculture : but, since we got a man who has turned that Department into a department of processors, distributors and speculators, it hasn't worked, because he, the secretary of the processors, wanted to see to it that the farmer was underpaid so the processor could make excessive profits.

I believe that Congress should pass agricultural laws that are so clear as to the intent of that law, so that when a man such as we now have heading the Department of Agriculture violates it, he can be brought to justice.

For those commodities not easily stored, I believe the production payment plan is a good one, the Brannon plan, if you please. Evidently Benson thought so, too, for it was good for wool produced in his home State.

No one plan is sufficient and if there really ever is a surplus or overproduction, the Government should pay the farmer by taking some of his land out of production. However, this payment should not be less than parity for that land.

I resent the fact that the price of good international relations rests primarily on the farmer. While the administration and newspapers holler to high heaven about surpluses, we permit wheat, food grains, and even pork to be imported into this country, and then give protection to monopolistic corporations who manufacture most of our durable goods through high tariffs.

Farmer after farmer has told me that they are going backward or are eating up the money that should be set aside for depreciations. I know this to be true, for I am living on my depreciation and when the time comes no money will be available to paint, get necessary repairs, or replace old machinery. Many farmers are increasing in debt to live on the farm as I am.

The farmers have always produced good wholesome food and were subsidized $1 billion in 20 years while newspapers and magazines during same period were subsidized $21⁄2 billion and their product has not always been wholesome. Let us also remember farmers' patriotism has never had to be bought like the monopolistic corporations with a 10 percent plus during wartimes.

Never in the history of our country has a class of people been so vilified and lied about as the family type farmer is today by a man who heads the Agriculture Department. The family type farmer not only produces our food, but also the population of our cities. Yes, they are the basis for a Christian-democratic society, and I, for one, resent this vilification and these lies. I also resent the fact that one man held up the parity bill in the Senate, sitting on his rear end and refusing to allow it to come to a vote after it was passed by the House. I wonder if that man, even though he heads the Committee on Agriculture, is a member of “a responsible political party."

The farm situation is grave, and something must be done now, and I believe it can, by—

1. Loan and purchase storage program which worked for the basic commodities and helped prices in other farm products. It should be improved and strengthened.

2. Production-payment plan for all other farm products, such as hogs, beef, dairy products, and poultry. Congress should order and direct the Secretary of Agriculture to make those payments direct to the farmer.

3. A conservation program that would pay farmers adequately for land taken out of production.

4. Laws written so clearly and with the provision that it is carried out or enforced as passed by Congress so as to prevent a recurrence of a Benson. 5. The cost of good international relations should be borne by all the people, not by the farmers alone.

6. Parity for the family type farmer in prices and also in credit, not 90 percent of parity or 60 percent of parity. Parity is a fair and just price. and thus is never high. This parity is a must, if we are to preserve the

democratic way of life, for we can't maintain it without fmaily or the family type farmer on the land.

7. In drawing up a new agricultural law it is my sincere belief we must recognize this fact: That the farmer sells in a controlled market, and not a free market-a market controlled by those monopolies who process, distribute, and speculate for the purpose of satisfying the materialistic greed of a few and not the welfare of human beings; that the so-called law of supply and demand has never set the price. We have seasons of the year of divine origin, but these are used by the monopolies to lower prices of products, when the farmers have them to sell them, and then raising them when in their possession so the consumer still pays.

8. This parity should be based on the old parity formula and guarantee by the Federal Government. We, as farmers, want no hypocrisy by modern version of parity, which would in reality not give us parity at all. My name is Iionel G. Reeck. I live in Zion Township, Stearns County, and I own and operate 280 acres. This past year I had 78 acres in oats, 93 acres in corn, 25 acres in alfalfa, 15 acres in alfalfa pasture, 36 acres in mixed hay.

1953, sold 128 hogs..

1954, sold 130 hogs

1955 (to date), sold 126 hogs.-.

Still have 26 pigs to sell.

Also milk 10 cows, have 19 head of young stock, and 250 hens.

$6, 066. 61

6, 079. 55

4, 264. 57

The last 11 hogs, average weight 204 pounds, brought me $279.11, or $25.37 average.

Real-estate taxes: 1953, $373.62; 1954, $450.64; 1955, $453.56.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Marvin Rialson.

STATEMENT OF MARVIN RIALSON, TRACY, MINN.

Mr. RIALSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Marvin Rialson, and I rent and operate 200 acres in Lyon County. After listening to the testimony this morning, it seems to me that practically all farmers want some type of Government program, either a price-support program or a land-rental program. But in view of what has happened in the last months, no program will work without the cooperation of the Secretary of Agriculture.

I find in my area that more farmers are in favor of an acreage restriction and land lend-lease idea than ever before.

We must cut the overproduction of agriculture, but along with this acreage cut must come a return of at least 90 percent of parity on all field crops, at the same time putting any overproduced crop subject to acreage cuts.

The prices on livestock will adjust themselves upward only after production of feed grains is restricted.

Every time it is suggested that retailers or processors should be investigated, we are accused of interfering with private enterprise.

I believe that the price-cost squeeze that we are now plagued with is interfering with private enterprise, namely, agriculture; and the sooner we can reduce our production and, at the same time, maintain farm income, the sooner we can get away from the regimentation of lower farm prices.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Rialson follows:)

First of all, I want to say that I consider it a real privilege to testify here today.

I am Marvin Rialson, of Tracy. I rent and operate 200 acres in Lyon County. For the past 2 years I have been president of the Lyon County Farmers Union, and as such I have had the opportunity to meet and visit with farmers all over

the county. The statements I make here today are my own views, but I am sure they represent the feeling of the majority of farmers of Lyon County. During the 1952 election campaign and for some time thereafter, it was not hard to tell which farmers wanted firm price supports and which ones wanted a system of price flexing. But after listening to conversation in a local elevator and in a hog-buying station the past few weeks, it is impossible to distinguish a Republican from a Democrat or a Farm Bureau man from a Farmers Union man. They all seem to be satisfied now that price flexing is not the answer to our farm problem.

One fairly accurate guide in determining the financial status of farmers is the item of accounts receivable in country elevators and bulk oil companies. Both do a major part of their business with farmers. I know that at least two co-op elevators in Lyon County, during the past year, have made drastic changes in their credit policy. Too many farmers were asking for too much credit. The same is true of oil companies. I have seen annual reports of co-ops and have been told by independent dealers that the same condition exists with them. Today too many farmers do not have the cash to pay for necessary purchases such as feed and tractor fuel. Along that same line all implement dealers in Lyon County have gone on a strictly cash basis.

While automatic-heating systems are enjoyed by most families here in Minnesota, I have been told that a number of farmers won't have the money to buy fuel oil this winter and are getting ready to heat their homes with wood and corncobs.

There has been very little farm construction in my area this past year. A number of silos were built to utilize drought-affected corn, but otherwise the bulk of construction work was necessary repairs and replacements. Farmers don't have the kind of money it takes to do construction work and the incentive to borrow has been lost.

It is my opinion that more farmers are in favor of acreage restrictions and Government land-lease programs than ever before. They realize that the majority of farmers must cooperate in reducing the overall farm production. We still have a few who belong to the rugged-individual school of thought, but recent price declines have at least started them thinking.

Until some better program is devised, I firmly believe we should return to 90percent supports on basic crops. Feed grains and oilseed crops should likewise be supported at the 90-percent figure, and any crop that Congress felt was overproduced should come under acreage restrictions.

The perishable-product problem is more complex, but I believe that if all field crops were supported at a reasonable level and subject to acreage restrictions, livestock and dairy prices would eventually reach a profitable level. Production payments should be used if seasonal production is overburdensome for the processors.

During the past summer part of Lyon County experienced a tornado. Another section suffered from drought. We all felt the effects of lower farm prices. They say the only thing we can do with the weather is talk about it. I sincerely hope, gentlemen, that your committee, and that great legislative body, the United States Senate, will do more than talk about slipping farm prices. Put the farm problem above politics, stabilize farm income, save the family-type farm and our American way of life.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sandager.

STATEMENT OF DONALD V. SANDAGER, TYLER, MINN.

Mr. SANDAGER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Donald Sandager, and I farm 160 acres in Lincoln County, and rent an additional 200 acres.

Now, I have handed in my testimony to the clerk here, so I am just going to make a few remarks, because most of the things which I would have said today have already been covered.

First of all, we have heard a lot of criticism of the flexible pricesupport system. I would like to say this, why should we go back to the rigid system which has already demonstrated that it has not pulled the farmer up by his bootstraps?

I think we should give the flexible system more than a few months' trial before we see whether it works or not.

Senator YOUNG. May I ask a question at this point, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator YOUNG. Did we not give the flexible price-support program a chance to work back in 1938 when they were at 52 to 75 percent of parity for several years, and that was a period before the war when we built up tremendous surpluses; isn't that correct?

Mr. SANDAGER. Yes, it was given a trial then, but I believe we should give it a trial now under these conditions.

(There were cries of "boo" from the audience.)

The CHAIRMAN. Let us have order, please. He has a right to state his own opinion.

Proceed, sir.

Mr. SANDAGER. I should like to emphasize three points in making a flexible price-support system function.

First of all, the Government surpluses must be reduced so that they do not carry a depressing effect upon the market.

Now, the possibility of converting grains into alcohol or other fuel uses to conserve our diminishing natural resources should be investigated in the case of cereal grains.

Secondly, even under a flexible system there are times when some production controls may be necessary.

Controls should be the last resource, and land should be taken completely out of production and planted to a soil-building crop.

Farmers should be paid enough to bring the income to a level under normal production.

Acreage controls should be based on land capabilities rather than on past history.

I repeat, acreage allotments should be determined from a soils map of each farm and, finally, it is feasible that at times perishables may be supported.

But if they are supported they should be supported at low levels, allowing the market a chance to clear itself; and they should then be supported by Government purchases for giveaway programs, and if that fails, then permit the market to clear itself and to reimburse the producers by direct payments.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Schmechel.

Senator YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, may I say to this witness, that the many young people in Minnesota who have appeared before this committee, have done a fine job and demonstrated their own thinking.

In my 101⁄2 years on this committee, I never have heard so many young people testify before.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Sandager follows:)

We are fortunate that you gentlemen are so concerned about the welfare of agriculture that you will take time to come to the people. As an individual I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I own and operate a 160-acre farm and rent an additional 200 acres in Lincoln County. My ideas are those of a common dirt farmer who believes that the farm still provides a good standard of living and is a good place to rear a family.

I believe that the role of Government is not to guarantee us a profit, but to provide us with an opportunity to make a decent living. A sound farm program