the needs of the coming year you might get them to be in line, particularly as to those commodities that are not protected, wherein they do vote themselves into acreage control, et cetera?

Mr. COLE. I am not in favor of that. I would like to speak about the things I do favor rather than those things that I do not favor, but the type of things that I am not in favor of are folks coming out and saying everybody ought to get into this type of industry, because. it is going to be profitable next year. Who knows whether it will be? Just the mere statement that is made that it will be is a stimulant to production, and with that in view I firmly believe that the facts. should be known and let the farmers make their own decisions as to what they want to produce and how much.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. COLE. I am going to get into an area where I do not think Government should be.

The CHAIRMAN. It should not be?

Mr. COLE. Yes.

Government should definitely not guarantee a profit to any group except in national emergencies or in case of some enterprises which Government must definitely control.

As a farmer I would be the last person to permit myself to come under controls if I could avoid it.

Flexible price supports will work if given a chance. They are already beginning to prove their worth. High rigid price supports are a menace to agriculture under usual conditions. To me as a poultryman they often force me to pay higher prices than necessary for grain.

Flexible price supports would put a floor under such prices and prevent ruinously low grain prices-in other words, afford stability. Another set of tools for stability provided by Government is marketing agreements.

In milk, Federal orders provide stability and at the same time allow for needed adjustments in production.

In potatoes and fruits and other perishable items marketing agreements provide tools whereby the producers, and in some cases distributors, can jointly prevent disastrous oversupplies from seriously depressing prices.

This is just a personal observation.

Personally I feel that such procedures as I have outlined are as far as Government should go in helping stabilize prices. To go further is to take from the hands of the farmer his right to make major decisions as to how he shall operate. Personally, if Congress is going to make laws to take away my right to decide how I operate my farm, I'd definitely rather not farm.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

We will next hear from Mr. Connor.

Do you have anything to add to what has been stated?

STATEMENT OF LESTER CONNOR, HENNIKER, N. H.

Mr. CONNOR. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that is rather difficult to say at this time in the hearing, Mr. Senator. My name is Lester Connor of Henniker, N. H. I am a dairy farmer in the town. I am up here today with the hope that I could convey to this committee

my own personal feelings as to what I feel should be the Government's stand in agriculture.

I firmly believe in free individual enterprise.

I realize that I may be unpopular, having listened to previous speakers, in that I believe that the Government should not have high rigid price supports. I believe in flexible price supports, so that in hard times our family might not lose entirely everything they have, but I think that we must rely upon personal initiative, the survival of the fittest. I think that is the thing that has made American agriculture great.

I think it is the only thing that will permit us to continue to exist. The CHAIRMAN. Are you from New Hampshire?

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you got many labor unions in that State?
Mr. CONNOR. Yes; we have labor unions.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think labor could have attained the heights it has without any legislation to provide, say, for collective bargaining and things like that?

Mr. CONNOR. I will answer that in this way, that I think that labor is heading for trouble. If we were in the same position as labor, I think in the long run we would be worse off than if you leave us alone and let us run our business. And those who cannot do it, go out of business.

The CHAIRMAN. What crops in New Hampshire receive price supports; any?

Mr. CONNOR. I do not know as I am in a position to answer you that.
The CHAIRMAN. You folks produce a lot of poultry, I guess.
Mr. CONNOR. We produce some.

The CHAIRMAN. And dairy products?

Mr. CONNOR. Dairy products, fluid milk.

The CHAIRMAN. What you would like to have is cheap feed?

Mr. CONNOR. Well, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what you would like to have?

Mr. CONNOR. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You would not want to protect those that produce that?

Mr. CONNOR. I am not talking about the western farmer. I am merely talking about us here.

The CHAIRMAN. We do not deal with just New England or Connecticut, you know. We deal with the whole country.

Mr. CONNOR. I think what goes for us goes for them. If we had run our own farm we would be all better off.

The CHAIRMAN. I know that. The situation in New England is far different from what it is all over the West, the Midwest, and some parts of the South. I was surprised to learn that in some parts of the South the dairy farmer is taking the same attitude that the farmers in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine, and Vermont. Why? Because they have a ready market for what they produce. Florida does not want it. They have a ready market for what they produce. They have marketing agreements and everything else.

It is in some areas, where through the war years they produced quite a bit, that they are in trouble. Those are the ones that need attention.

I am in thorough agreement with you that we want to let this thing go back to free enterprise as soon as we can. I am with you on that. It may take a long time to do it, but as long as you protect certain segments of society, why others that suffer ought maybe also to be protected.

Thank you, sir.

Next is Mr. Barrett. Will you give us your full name for the record?

STATEMENT OF EVANS H. BARRETT, KEENE, N. H.

Mr. BARRETT. My name is Evans H. Barrett of Keene, New Hampshire, dairy farmer.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything new to add to what has already been said?

Mr. BARRETT. I do not know as I have anything new. I just feel that the quicker Government gets out of business, and gets out of farming, the better off the farming industry is going to be.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you want us to go to Washington next year and cancel out the law that now gives you the right to get into these marketing agreements and get a pretty good price?

Mr. BARRETT. So far as I am concerned, I wish they would cancel everything they have given to the farmers. I can pay my own bills. And when I cannot pay them, I can drive nails or I can nail on shingles. I have not got to farm.

Every farmer in the United States has the opportunity to farm or not farm, as he sees fit.

The CHAIRMAN. They are not all carpenters, you are.

Mr. BARRETT. I am not a carpenter, but you do not have to be a carpenter to get $2 an hour. And all of these farmers are working for

50 cents.

The CHAIRMAN. So you would be satisfied if we could arrange for everybody to start from scratch?

Mr. BARRETT. They do not have to start from scratch. This forever ladeling out from Washington, I believe that the administration of the benefits we get on the farms cost three times the benefits we finally derive from the tax money that is taken from the people and ultimately gets back to the farmer.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else?

Mr. BARRETT. I just want to go on record as saying that these people that are looking for payments of subsidies want to run and look at Russia. If they want socialized farming, let them go to Russia. We have got a free country, and we have got free enterprise. And everybody is his own master here in these United States. It just seems too bad to me that these people get right up and look at Russia and sit right here and tell you they want to be paid to farm. [Applause.] Senator HOLLAND. I wish the gentleman would stop long enough to say one thing more for the record. Just what do you produce? You say that you are a dairy farmer?

Mr. BARRETT. I milk 100 cows. I set 5,000 sap buckets, cut a little cord wood, and in spare time I am a city counseller.

Senator HOLLAND. I congratulate you on your activities. What is

your acreage of ownership?

Mr. BARRETT. I own probably 400 acres and rent 6 more.
Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

There is one more, Mr. Colby.

name for the record?

Will you proceed and give your full

STATEMENT OF JAMES COLBY, LITCHFIELD, N. H.

Mr. COLBY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, before I start, gentlemen, I want to assure you that my attitude is not antagonistic. I realize the tremendous task that you gentlemen are trying to accomplish. If there is anything I can do, I want to help. I have no little narrow perspective of this thing. In fact, I have no gripes, so far as I am concerned personally, but I am terribly griped with the condition of agriculture in this Nation as you gentlemen have expressed here today that you are griped about.

I have just a very few brief statements. They say that brevity is the soul of wit. I think that I will be the briefest witness that you have listened to today.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I hope that you have a solution to the problem.

Mr. COLBY. I am a vegetable grower, cultivating approximately 500 acres of land each year, sweet corn for market, potatoes, cabbage, cucumbers, green and wax snap beans, shell beans.

Senator HOLLAND. Where?

Mr. COLBY. In the town of Litchfield on the Merrimac between Nashua and Manchester.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is your market?

Mr. COLBY. The market is 98 percent of the Boston area. Springfield, and the Worcester area.

The Nation's farm economy would be sabotaged by a return to high rigid price supports. That has been stated and reiterated many times. The New England farmers in particular would suffer even more than they are now suffering if the Federal Government acceded to the high pressure campaign now under way to place more rather than less emphasis on socialized agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you call that socialized agriculture? Many have said that this afternon, socialized agriculture. Do you know that none of these price-support programs could go into effect except that the farmers vote for them? That is the law.

Mr. COLBY. It may be that certain farmers do vote for them. The CHAIRMAN. That is the law. None of these programs could go into effect unless two-thirds of those voting say, "We want to go into it." How in the name of commonsense can you and others call that socialized agriculture? Please tell me. The same thing goes for flexible price supports. They vote for that. You could not put any

of these programs in effect unless the farmers of this country voted for them. Please understand that.

Mr. COLBY. Yes; I appreciate that very much.

Rigid supports were inaugurated to stimulate production during the war emergency, but having accomplished that purpose, they are now responsible for the wasteful production of burdensome surpluses. A little mention was made of the school-lunch program. I am very proud of that thing. If all of the losses that this program has sustained in this country were added up, I think that the wonderful effect that the school-lunch program is having in this country, those losses could be forgotten about.

They do not solve but rather increase the farmer's problem. The vegetable growers nationwide have been the major recipients of the resulting inequalities.

The Nation's farm policy badly needs overhauling whereby some floor-price plan would be put into effect that would benefit every segment of agriculture and not just the privileged few. Such a program would get the Government out of agriculture and it should compare favorably with the laws that now afford protection to industry and labor and it woud not be at the expense of the taxpayer. A floor price without any price incentive. I am willing to be counted on the side of flexible supports and am sure they are more attractive to the average consumer as it results in less cost to the taxpayer.

I wish to emphasize the real need today is to get the Government out of the farm program.

I have said in my original piece here that the sooner the better, but I will qualify that. I do not say the sooner the better. I say as quickly as can be done without bringing chaos.

I wish to take the opportunity here to endorse the practical, efficient, and economical way Secretary Benson is trying to administer the present plan. I see no need for the politically inspired panic over his good, honest judgment.

It might interest you gentlemen to know that there has been an awful lot of time spent on potatoes here today. If potatoes could be sold on a quality basis, a specific gravity test, instead of by appearance the most beautiful appearing potatoes eat the poorest, it would help. They are grown for human consumption. If they can be put on the specific gravity test for humans to eat, we would not have nearly as much trouble as we have had.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean?

Mr. COLBY. Specifically, the specific gravity potato is a potato that a person will bake and when you break it, it will break open just like a bag of flour and you want to eat a potato like that.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the Idaho potato?

Mr. COLBY. Not necessarily. We grow them just as good, probably a little better in New Hampshire than they do in Idaho.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. COLBY. It has been a pleasure, gentlemen. I certainly appreciate the work that you people are doing. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Now Mr. Sykes, I understand that you will appear in the place of Mr. Jones.

Will you give us your name in full for the record, please, and your occupation?