with their ability along their lines of training, then I shall be the last to dispute their knowledge. They should show as much courtesy and good faith in agriculture's recommendations for defense of our country.

The pages of history are full of nations who were great and fell, and most of them fell for the lack of food. As a farmer, I think this Nation will not be much of an exception in history. As a farmer, let us view the situation. I say food is the weakest link in the chain of defense of this Nation. Our enemies should be regarded to be as smart as we are. If I were the enemy and given the task of plotting the downfall of the United States and had only 25 atom bombs, they would be placed on the 25 largest oil refineries. Then I would hope that they wouldn't kill a person, for people and more people would be in my favor. Now let us see why.

If this happened, the balance of the refineries output would have to go for military defense. All civilian production would stop, but we have enough cars, refrigerators, radios, houses and the like, owned by the people and distributed, to last for years. The only civilian need is food.

Most cities have less than 1 week's supply of food on hand; without oil they could not be supplied. The point is, we have no distributed supply, no actual

reserve.

A few years ago, Cleveland, Ohio, had a storm, and within a few days, milk was $1 a quart and bread $1 a loaf. This is a very meager example of our plight in case of our inability to supply our cities.

Within 10 days, cities would be in rioting for food; people in rioting cannot be defended.

Farmers are the largest users of oil in our economy, and without oil, there would be no replenishing of our food supply. The so-called surpluses would feed this Nation for only a few months. Then starvation would be our fate.

No one is helping our enemies more than the careless talk about the burdensome food surpluses. This is our weak point and our enemies know it.

Most nations which are self-sufficient in food have 50 percent or more of their population on farms. That means only one-half need be supplied with food; the reserve need be only 1 for 2.

In our country, 5 percent of the people produce 95 percent of the food. That means 95 percent of the people need food supplied to them. The reserve requirement is 1 to 19. This makes a different problem, and we have never recognized it as such.

This country should carry 19 times as much food reserves as other self-sufficient nations, and have it distributed.

It is the farmers' moral responsibility to feed the Nation, now, and keep the soil fertile for future generations.

It is not the responsibility of farmers to store the reserve for the 19 in case of disaster, and the 19 must be made to see it as such.

The shepherd boy who was sold into slavery to Egypt, got that nation to store 7 years' food supply, and by so doing, saved the world, and wrote the peace for generations. Let us take the lesson.

As a farmer, I petition the Defense Department to order every city to warehouse in their city enough food to supply the city for 1 entire year, and to ware house it in units of a size to supply 25,000 people, and to be responsible for it and to the people in case of attack.

If every city had this store, and the 25 bombs were dropped, there would be no rioting for food, and in 1 year something could be worked out.

I suggest that such a food reserve be built up over a 4-year period and be kept fresh by replenishing one-fourth each year, the old store to be sold for stock feed. The actual cost or depreciation would be surprisingly low, in terms of the security it would afford.

Modern war is planned to break the morale of the civilians, whether the war is hot or cold. Knowing this, let it not happen to us.

HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE,

State House, Indianapolis, Ind.

HUDSON, IND., October 19, 1953.

GENTLEMEN: May I set forth my ideas pertaining to the general welfare of the country as well as agriculture. I am submitting the following comments. In normal relation to the economic balance in our country the farmers of America furnish about 70 percent of all purchasing power and without 100 percent of parity for the farmer the basic economic supports are weakened percent

agewise as the parity is depreciated. How then can this prosperity be sustained without price supports.

My definition of prosperity, "production for constructive use," therefore brings us to some analysis. Even if we give away our surpluses as we did recently when we gave 100 million tons of wheat to Pakistan, our economy did not suffer any loss but was strengthened by it. When we give a parity price to farmers for this wheat and they in turn spend that dollar in the channels of trade (with its minimum of seven times turnover) if these transactions only represented an average of 25-percent profit we received $1.75 in return. How can we lose on that.

Farm economy is basic and is the very foundation of all our progress. What else have we to support it? Nothing except our war potential and this is not of a constructive nature. We had a slogan during the Second World War that food would win that war and write the peace. It has been proven that it will in Germany recently. Why not draw a line around the Soviet border and use food instead of guns. It might be the difference.

The dollars boys seem to forget that all the money in the world is worthless unless there is a demand for the product of labor through the purchasing power of our people. Once the buying power is destroyed you can buy all the farmland in the country and you cannot pay the taxes. You can start all the industry and you cannot sell any fraction of 1 percent of the product.

Labor now is beginning to understand that their jobs largely depend on the purchasing power of the farmer and are lining up with him for their economic good.

Now about hard dollars, is it not true that during the depression we had very hard dollars-so hard indeed that about 25 of them would purchase an acre of land, 30 cents would buy a bushel of wheat and 3 cents would buy a pound of pork. Does anyone want hard dollars again?

If I was in debt I would not want hard dollars or a man to manage my business that would work for my creditors. That is to say I would not want interest raised, etc.

In conclusion may I say that without a balanced equity for the farmer our whole economy will surely fail. He knows full well the principles of right from wrong and is beginning to understand basic economy and how his honest effort is being exploited for the benefit of the few.

He will reason and play fair in return for any and all benefits he receives.
Trusting your good judgment will prevail.
Yours very truly,

CARL C. PRAY.

FAIRMOUNT, IND., October 19, 1953.

The Agricultural Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States of America.

GENTLEMEN: I am the owner and operator of a 200-acre farm in Grant County, Ind. I appreciate the opportunity to submit the following statement and recommendations for your consideration:

I am opposed to the so-called Benson plan or plans, and recommend price supports for agricultural commodities sufficient to maintain 100 percent of parity. I advise that PMA officials be locally elected by farmers, and that PMA be operated as it has been in the past which was more satisfactory and economical than the present plan, and not as political.

I suggest that the present conservation districts be maintained, and that the work of the conservation officials be enlarged to further husband and improve the soils our greatest natural resource. Rural electrical and rural telephone loans should be extended until such time as all farms are serviced. Productioncredit funds should be made available in adequate amounts to meet the needs of an expanding rural economy. As proved by the past experience, such appropriations have very materially increased our national income.

I wish to call the committee's attention to a statement of Carl H. Wilken, analyst for the Defense Subcommittee of the Joint House-Senate Committee on Banking and Currency: "Stabilizing farm prices is the only way a depression can be averted in the United States." "Each dollar gross from farm products generates into $7 of national income," Mr. Wilken said. He explained the average farm price structure must be at or near 100 percent of parity to keep national income high enough for balancing the Federal budget, and maintaining approximate full employment. He further states that national income drops $30 billion for every 10 percent below parity for farm commodities.

I think that parity should be extended to all farm commodities, including some perishables, livestock, and livestock products. Modern means of storage, such as freezing, canning, dehydrating, and other processing makes this possible. With parity applying to only some commodities, surpluses have frequently resulted in those commodities, but if parity is extended to all farm products, the cause of these surpluses will be removed.

I advise against turning over all or any part of our agricultural program to our land-grant colleges or extension departments for administration. Why should our colleges or extension departments undertake to dictate to, or manage our farms and soil conservation? Their created duty was to educate-not to manage. Why spend large sums and valuable time on investigations and new plans for change when our farm program has been working efficiently for several years, and has aided our great country in developing the most prosperous economy we have ever known? There is no need for fear or change. We only need faith in our prosperity and successes.

Why even talk of a Benson plan, old or new, when we now have good laws, tried and proven, which guarantee prices of at least 90 percent of parity? Wilken says that only the administration of the laws has been withholding their advantages.

You are all familiar with the drop in farm prices since the Benson plan, and the resultant drop in the number of employed persons, and the loss of buying power which may mean another serious depression. I recommend extending and broadening our farm programs by finding new uses and new markets for the farm commodities. We should have new agreements and trade relations with other countries of the world, a larger development of point 4, and aid to our allies; using our surpluses to stabilize markets, and give aid to the needy everywhere.

Agriculture is our basic industry, and it must prosper in order to balance the budget, maintain a balanced economy, provide full employment, and encourage the American way of life.

Thanking you for this opportunity, I am,

Sincerely yours,

To Whom This May Concern:

WILLIAM M. JONES.

The family-size farm, run by and worked by the family, is the stability of our Government; but when big business is allowed to control, it means trouble to our economy as well as discouragement to our young farmers who must carry the task of the future-feed the ever-increasing population.

Without support on basic commodities at their fair share of income and increase of operation expense will put the supply in danger of higher food prices for all. As farm income drops all business falls off; unemployment is sure to be the next concern.

With Mr. Benson's farm policy securely locked in his blue book, so will the spending of farm purchases and equipment be withheld.

In my opinion, the solution to this problem is subsidy for any commodity in peril at 90 percent, with a fair-minded legislative body in the driver's seat. Yours truly,

PLINY D. GARBER, Rural Route 4, Peru, Ind.

GENTLEMEN: It is absurd to even think that the American farmer can produce and sell on a free market in competition with other business who operate on controlled production and sell on a protected market.

It is therefore necessary that the Government, who is the only source of protection, see to it that the farmers are protected with 100 percent of parity prices, by commodity loans, or any other means necessary to maintain his purchasing power in line with other business enterprises.

Assistance to farmers in the expansion of cooperative powerlines, lower interest rates on all loans, and a continuation of the old PMA county committee system of farm programs, including payments to farmers for certain soil-building practice.

Respectfully,

A. R. LEES.

To the House Committee on Agriculture:

GENTLEMEN: As a young farmer who has been called into military service twice, requiring me to set up farming three times in my life, I make my statement to you in behalf of myself and the many other young farmers of the State of Indiana. We are attempting to buy equipment necessary to farm in such a manner that we can compete with the older farmers in our community. We are not able to purchase all the equipment and livestock we need without the use of some credit. To guarantee that we may stay in the farming business, we feel we are entitled to a 100-percent parity price for the article we are producing for insurance we can meet our future obligations. We like to think we are efficient farmers, but a drastic change in future farm programs will certainly weed us out of this farming operation.

GERALD CARMONY,

An Indiana Farmer. ATLANTA, IND., October 19, 1953.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE,

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: I am a farmer living near Atlanta, Hamilton County, Ind. I want to solicit your support for full-parity price supports on all farm commodities. Anything less than parity is too small and unfair to the farmer.

Today we only have price supports on 31 percent of our farm commodities dollarwise. Then, too, the highest level at which any commodity is supported is 90 percent. Too few of our farm commodities are covered by supports and at too low a level. The result: we have a parity ratio of 93, or about equal to the average parity ratio for the 5 years preceding the other depression of 1929 to 1932. Also we farmers find ourselves in a price squeeze today equal to that 5-year period.

This is the picture. The farmer has lost his purchasing power. He is out of the market. Manufacturers are cutting production. Labor is being laid off. This will cause less demand for food. Less farm income. Less national income. Less tax to retire national debt. This will be the cycle until farm purchasing power has been restored. If it is not restored we are all facing another national depression that will so far surpass the last one that there will be no comparison.

Now how are we going to restore what we have lost? Variable price supports will not do it, which is commonly called sliding scale. They would be worse than the supports we have now. The two-price plan can be put in the same category. To me it is the sliding scale only under another name. Full-parity supports is the only plan that has been mentioned up to the present time that will restore farm-purchasing power.

Give the farmer parity and he is the Nation's greatest buyer. What does he buy annually? He buys 7 million tons of steel. This is more than is used in the manufacture of automobiles in a year. He buys 50 million tons of chemicals which is 5 times what he bought in 1935; 161⁄2 billion gallons of petroleum which is more than any other industry uses; 15 billion kilowatts of electric power; 320 million pounds of rubber.

Does this market mean anything to industry and labor and to our total national economy? It assuredly does. Economists tell us that for every $1 loss in farm income will affect our national income 7 times.

Some say that our price-support program costs too much. Price supports have cost over the past 20 years the equivalent of 1 good sandwich per year for each man, woman, and child. I firmly believe we could profitably spend 4 or 5 sandwiches per person per year to keep our national economy in a healthy condition, to keep the wheels of industry moving, and labor steadily employed. I believe in abundant production for domestic consumption, exports, and adequate reserves. After that I believe in using acreage controls.

I believe that it is a national responsibility to hold adequate reserves of farm commodities to offset crop failures, for defense and for peace.

Storeable commodities should be supported through the loan programs. Perishable commodities should be supported by making compensatory payments equal to the difference between the average price of the commodity and the parity price. Conservation of our land is another item of national importance and should not be overlooked. I firmly believe it is in the national interest to continue a broader agricultural conservation program than we have today and I want to

especially mention the continuation of such practices as limestone and fertilizers applied to clovers and grasses based on soil tests, also specially sown greenmanure crops.

I hear some say, Why continue making assistance payments? We have operating farms, today, the young man who is starting to farm heavily in debt. We have the absentee landlord who is only interested in the dollar in hand now. We have the old farmer, that has lost the youthful ambition, that says let the other fellow do it. These three groups make up the greater percent of our farmers and without a conservation program with assistance payments the job will not be done.

I believe our conservation effort should be doubled if we expect to insure the stability of our farmlands. In looking into the future I am not alarmed in the production of surpluses. I am concerned whether we can produce enough for our ever-increasing population.

Conservation of farmland to me is an investment in the future of our country. It is insurance that our descendants may eat a full meal. Therefore it is the responsibility of all the citizens of our Nation to help carry on conservation of our soil.

Now, how do we get the job done? I believe that farmers themselves should be permitted to formulate the kind of a conservation program they want for the respective counties and States. A conservation program that they are interested in and are willing to spend their money for to partially carry out. I be lieve the conservation program should be administered by farmer-elected committees and not by an appointee handed down from the Department at Washington. If we preach democracy, let's have democracy even in our farm programs. I don't want political hand-me-downs. I want the choice of the farmers filling these positions.

Rural electrification has been a godsend to our rural communities. The farmer has used amounts of electricity beyond all comprehension. The lines that were originally built are becoming inadequate to carry the load.

New, heavier lines and substations will have to be built. REMC's will need additional loans to do this job making adequate appropriations necessary. In order to be assured electricity at a fair rate we should keep the preference clause in the REA law to permit co-ops to generate current. We should use our Godgiven resources to further develop public power for the citizens of our Nation. I believe that farmers should have adequate credit at fair interest rates at all times. Keep Farmers' Home Administration in the field of credit to help the young farmer get a start. They have done a good job.

I believe we should encourage and help the farmer on the family-size farm. The family-size farm is the backbone of our agriculture and the farm family on family farms truly represents our American way of life.

Thanking you for your careful consideration of these matters, I am,

Respectfully yours,

JOHN F. EHMAN.

(1) I want nothing less than 100-percent parity for the basic commodities. Also the same for some of our perishables, for hogs, cattle, milk, etc. We must have controls along with this.

(2) I believe in the committee system controlled by farmers and farmers only. (3) We must have a soil-conservation program administered by the farmers with the assistance of Purdue University.

(4) We need crop insurance to go along with the other phases of the program to protect us at a time when our crops have been destroyed by the weather, insects, and other hazards beyond my control.

(5) We need farm credit, with reasonable interest rates, in order that our young folks may be able to start up in the farming industry and survive.

(6) I believe records should be kept on many representative farms throughout the State; figure the cost of production on all commodities produced on these farms, and put them on a cost-plus basis and add 10 percent or whatever is needed to make them show a profit.

(7) I do not want a two-price system for our wheat or any other commodity. The sliding scale of parity, as has been mentioned by some farm groups, is all wrong. Farmers have a certain amount of mandatory expense that has to be met; if on a sliding scale price is too low for the commodity, there is only one thing left to do, and that is to increase production until that has been met. That is what happened in the early thirties. Give us the right kind of a price for our commodities and there will be no trouble.