Senator HOLLAND. What about larger-scale individual operations, due to the efficiency of operation or the skill of operation of an individual operator-do you discourage them also?

Mr. WRIGHT. Undoubtedly, the more advanced individual operators would be under some limitation in this, but the great mass of farmers would benefit from it enormously.

Senator HOLLAND. Is this plan designed to force what you regard as a fairer distribution of the land and more equitable distribution of the profits of the soil?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir; I would say that was the case.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you.

Senator AIKEN. Mr. Wright, are you endorsing all provisions of the Brannan plan or simply the compensatory-payments provision? Mr. WRIGHT. I think I was pretty specific on that. The conservation features and the family type of farming features.

Senator AIKEN. Then you endorse that provision of the Brannan plan which would have provided 100 percent of parity supports for about 75 percent of the agricultural production of the country. That was part of the Brannan plan. You would endorse that?

Mr. WRIGHT. I do not know that it would work out that way. I think an operation that changes and adjustments would be made.

Senator AIKEN. You are also aware of the fact that the Brannan plan did not restrict its benefits to the family farm, but restricted it to a dollar-volume output which was approximately $24,000 a year. Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir.

Senator AIKEN. That any one farm could produce for price support. And you support that limitation?

Mr. WRIGHT. No, sir; I would say there have been changes since the Brannan plan was first advocated which would make necessary a quite considerable increase in the top limit.

Senator AIKEN. You would change that to keep pace with the change?

Mr. WRIGHT. Now and in the future.

Senator AIKEN. It was $24,000 at that time?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes.

Senator AIKEN. Also, do you endorse that provision of the Brannan plan which required any producer, in order to be eligible for supports, to operate his farm in accordance with directions from the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. WRIGHT. I doubt very much that such a provision would be workable. I think one of the appeals that the Brannan plan has to me is that it would bring a prosperity to agriculture within the framework of the free-enterprise system.

Senator AIKEN. Do you think that if we guaranteed 100-percent support of farm commodities it would be necessary to impose ceiling prices also in order to protect the consumer?

Mr. WRIGHT. I am afraid that at times something like that might be necessary.

Senator AIKEN. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wright, when you speak of the Brannan plan, do you have in mind this situation: That a fixed price would be agreed, whether it is 90 percent or 75 percent, whatever it might be, and let the farmer sell his product on the market for whatever the market would bring, and the difference in market price and the fixed

price up here, whether it be 75 or 90 percent, will be paid for by the Government?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir; that is my understanding.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what you are contending for here?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Are there any further questions?

Senator HOLLAND. Well, now, the Brannan plan involved 100-percent price supports; did it not?

Mr. WRIGHT. No; not my understanding of it. The selling price of the product was in a free market, and the compensatory payments to the farmers would be at some level above that, presumably determined by the Congress. Probably, the original advocates of the Brannan plan had in mind 100 percent of parity. Personally, I think that eventually this country is going to have to go beyond 100 percent of parity to bring about anything like equitable individual farm in

come.

Senator HOLLAND. Then you think that this program should be aimed at more than 100 percent of parity?

Mr. WRIGHT. I can see no prosperity for the farmers in price returns to them around 100 percent of parity.

Senator HOLLAND. You remember that the Brannan plan also covered perishables; do you not?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. Fruits, vegetables, and the like?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes.

Senator HOLLAND. Is that your recommendation, also?

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir; I think that it should be an across-the-board program.

Senator HOLLAND. Despite the fact that the fruit people do not want it, by and large the vegetable people do not want it, the livestock people do not want it, and many other elements of agricultural production population, including much more than one-half of the dollar value of agricultural production in the Nation do not want it?

Mr. WRIGHT. Senator, I have been in the farm organization field a long time. I have heard many statements made as to what farmers want and what farmers do not want. And I do not think that anybody knows very much about it.

Senator HOLLAND. Of course, it is the business of the men in the Congress to try to find out what their own farmers want, is it not?

Mr. WRIGHT. It is. It is, also, their business, in my opinion, to bring about an equitable situation in agriculture, based on knowledge of the subject that goes far beyond that, that any individual working farmer can possibly have.

Senator HOLLAND. Well, if I tell you that in my State, where the 3 principal commodities are tree fruits, winter vegetables and livestock, that all of their organizations in those 3 fields have repeatedly, constantly, consistently insisted that they be left free from Government regimentation, and that they do not want price supports, and that they think it is wrong in principle, do you think that I am not correctly informed as to their wishes?

Mr. WRIGHT. I would not say that entirely, but it is conceivable that the situation could be misunderstood. I would want to talk to those individual farmers. I have found in talking to farmers that

they are not always represented in their opinions by their organi

zations.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you again, Mr. Wright.

Let me say, for the benefit of the audience, that to my right is Senator Aiken from Vermont, to my left is Senator Holland from Florida, and we have with us your own Senator, Senator Ives. [Applause.]

Senator IVES. I appreciate the honor of being with you. It is a privilege. It is very kind of you, Mr. Chairman. I will have to leave you this afternoon rather early, because I had a lot of trouble getting here due to the weather.

The CHAIRMAN. We will next hear from Mr. Stanley H. Benham. Give us your name in full, your occupation.

STATEMENT OF STANLEY H. BENHAM, PRESIDENT, DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, MILLBROOK, N. Y.

Mr. BENHAM. Stanley H. Benham, president of the Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc.

The CHAIRMAN. I notice you have a statement there.

Mr. BENHAM. Yes, I have. And I shall confine my remarks as far as local conditions are concerned to the position of the 24,000 dairy farmers who are members of the Dairymen's League. I observed that Mr. Lent covered many of our local problems. That is, the position that our dairy farmers here find themselves in.

I would like to point out that the estimated prices under the New York milk order for the months ahead indicate that for this month of November our blend price will be 32 cents under that of a year ago, and in December 26 cents. And there is a fear it will continue a downward slope into 1956. Of course, that is our major problem. And what irritates our farm people at the present time, along with these declining prices for several months past, we have been hearing about higher wages for steelworkers and automobile workers and for milk drivers, and as you gentlemen probably well know, with milk as with other agricultural products, the increased handling cost between the farm and the consumer has prevented the consumers from receiving much if any benefits from the declining farm price.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any formula to submit to us?

Mr. BENHAM. I have as I get farther back into the paper, I have some suggestions.

I would touch briefly on some of the situations we find ourselves in from viewpoints that I have not yet heard expressed.

One of the criticisms aimed at farmers, and I guess with some justification in many cases, is our inability to work together. I was pleased this morning to hear just recently Senator Aiken had made an address out in the Dakotas, in which he had stressed that point to the farmers. I would say, however, that such a criticism is not wholly justified in this milkshed. We in our organization have taken the initiative in bringing the dairy and other farm groups of our milkshed together to work for constructive programs. And insofar as our milk situation is concerned, starting a year ago, right here in Utica, these groups worked shoulder to shoulder trying to meet the problem of the declining milk prices.

And I would also point out that the constructive leadership of these recognized dairy cooperatives has so far anyway prevented the irresponsible from seizing upon the present condition of the dairy farmers, that they find themselves in, as an excuse for fomenting serious trouble in this area.

I am saying we have thousands of dairymen in our milkshed who are rather hard up financially, and when that man is in that position he is rather apt to listen to radical ideas. If somebody proposes that he can give him the moon and the stars, too, he has a tendency to follow him. Because we have been working together we have been able to prevent much of that development.

We would agree with Mr. Lent that fluid milk should be priced on its own merits. And as he pointed out, we have the machinery available by which that can be done. It is available to us from the United States Department of Agriculture, that is, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937, and our existing marketing orders here.

I think that we dairymen here not only are concerned about our own situation, but we are concerned about the national agricultural situation of the other farm people. While there are varying degrees of pressure on farmers, depending on what crops they are in, where they are located, the fact remains that our farm people in this country pretty generally are just growing a little thinner, while everybody else seems to be getting fat and prosperous. Of course, I do not have to point out to you that this inequitable situation is a result of costs which are primary wages having been allowed to continue the spiral upward, while our prices have tumbled down.

I think that you, our elected leaders, have a primary responsibility of working with us.

The CHAIRMAN. We certainly want to do that. I am anxiously waiting for your solution to the problem. Give us that; that is what we came here for.

Mr. BENHAM. We will skip along over some of these things.

We agree with Mr. Lent that low prices not only do not reduce production, except if they are extended over a very long period of time, when they may starve some people out, but farm families do not starve off their farms very easily. We live up our depreciation, we will deplete the fertility of our soil before you starve us off. And depleting the fertility of the soil is a rather serious matter from the national viewpoint.

We find that there are limitations as to how much our people can eat. We can do advertising and promotion. We can change their preferences for food in a way that will tend to help our problems some, but our people continually lead a more sedentary life and we are always being advised that we are shortening our life expectancy by eating too much.

It would look like in 10 or 15 years from now that we will have a population that will eat up our production and use up our fiber, that is not much consolation to the young farmer today who is wondering how he will meet his interest and amortization on his debt next year. And when we look at these foreign markets we find that our price levels in this country have been pushed up in the past few years, so far above world prices that we cannot market on foreign markets and get anywhere near the cost of production.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that it will be possible that the people who do enjoy now a high standard will ever be able to compete with the peon labor of Mexico, Peru, Pakistan, and other nations of the world with much lower standards?

Mr. BENHAM. I do not think that will ever come. It is a fact that it exists. And it creates a problem. We are faced by those problems. They are problems that have been in this country. We have to share the responsibility of solving them. The question is how to solve them effectively and at the lowest cost.

On behalf of the Dairymen's League I would offer some suggestions for your consideration. I would hope that you would receive many others that would tie in and extend beyond our suggestions.

One problem we recognize is the problem of farmers on marginal and submarginal land, land except for some special periods a farm family can never expect to have a satisfactory living from.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have much of that in New York?

Mr. BENHAM. We have it in scattered spots in New York. It is not as serious with us as in some places, but I am thinking about our national picture now.

I have pointed out that it is difficult to starve those people off the land by low prices. I think as a Nation we are too tender hearted ever to do that, anyway. We have to develop a program that would influence and encourage them, I think, to turn to something else, and we would propose that both the Federal Government and the State governments develop and finnace programs to influence light industry to locate in such sections.

Senator AIKEN. Are you familiar with the message President Eisenhower sent to the Congress last winter, in which he called attention to this very thing, the borderline farm, and made several requests of the Congress for tools to attack that situation?

Mr. BENHAM. As I recall his request, it was tools to help them stay on those farms. I am proposing to discourage them to get off. Senator AIKEN. He requested several things. He wanted some additional funds for the Farmers' Home Administration, to permit those who were almost large enough to be economic to acquire more land so that they would be economic. He particularly wanted the right to make loans to a farmer who got part of his income off the farm. They cannot do that now. If a man lives on a farm and gets a job off the farm to make a substantial part of his income, he is not eligible for this loan from the Farmers Home Administration. And he needs it most of all.

Mr. BENHAM. I would be the last one to say that we should try to stop a farmer from raising and selling on the land he has. However, you could take the attitude that labor does against people who, in an attempt to take the jobs of organized labor, referred to as scabs. I would not want to refer to a farmer who earns his living somewhere else and then produces some unneeded agricultural products at the same time in that term.

Senator AIKEN. There were several other points, too, that the President made.

Mr. BENHAM. We think that if this were done that it would provide farm operators in those marginal land areas an alternative means of making a livelihood without having to move away from their estab