(8) Please do not let REA down as farmers depend on their REMC's for so much current that is going to increase. I mean the load will grow heavier and heavier for years to come; for example, dryers and many other uses of electricity will be used on the farms.

Yours respectfully,

ESTA W. THEOBOLD.

To the House Committee on Agriculture:

DEAR SIRS: I wish to ask your committee to at least extend the farm parity as it has been, or to increase it to the 100 percent status permanently.

I do not agree with the idea of Ezra Benson's farm policy of let agriculture go to h, for well do we know that the rugged individualism gets to be ragged individualism under his plan.

Do something constructive, please.

ST. PAUL, IND.

To House Agriculture Committee:

C. D. ARMSTRONG.

ALBION, IND., October 16, 1953.

As a farmer of Noble County I would like to see price support continued at 90 percent of parity on all storable commodities, perishable commodities as can be stored.

Soil-conservation practices continue to include lime, fertilizer, and greenmanure crop. Practice payments same 1950-51 program.

Program to administer by farmer-elected committeemen as in the past as I would rather have a farmer come to me in the farmer's way than the man that tells you how to do and what you will do.

To House Agriculture Committee:

RAY C. COLE, Farmer of Noble County.

WATERLOO, IND., October 16, 1953.

SIR: I want to see 90 percent of price supports continued on all storable commodities.

I want, too, production payments on perishable commodities equal to the difference between the average price of the commodity and 90 percent of parity. I am in favor of controls whenever our supply exceeds the demand.

I also want to see a conservation program of $250 million continued, including practices of limestone and fertilizers based on soil test.

I want all farm programs administered by farmer-elected committeemen and not by a group that does not now what farming is, or the conditions on the farm.

I am a farmer in DeKalb County, Ind.

ORA E. CROOKS.

ALBION, IND., October 16, 1953.

To the House Agricultural Committee:

GENTLEMEN: As a Noble County farmer I am very much interested in our future farm program. I should like to see support prices continued at 90 percent of parity on all basic commodities.

In our county we need to continue the payments on lime, marl, and fertilizer just as much as we have in the past.

When we have a surplus of a certain commodity, I favor controlled production. In fact if we can have a future program such as we have had in past few years, a big majority of our farmers will be happy about it.

Respectfully,

EDWARD C. REIDENBACH,

A Dirt Farmer.

Mr. HARVEY. Permit me to suggest again that the testimony of the witnesses not be interrupted.

The Chair now recognizes Henry P. Meier, of Mount Vernon.

STATEMENT OF HENRY P. MEIER, OF MOUNT VERNON, IND.

Mr. MEIER. Honorable Members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen. as evidence that more thinking than my own has gone into this, may I ask that the delegation from Posey County show their faces? Thank

you.

Since we cannot cover all the details in a 10-minute discussion we will have to limit ourselves to generalities and principles.

In behalf of the small producers and cooperators of past agricultural programs, I respectfully submit for your consideration, as information and basis for further farm legislation, the general text of my recent appeal for wheat-acreage adjustment to the Posey County PMA Committee, along with such other information and opinions as affecting the average farmer of my community, that I feel should be brought to the attention of this committee.

I own and operate a 120-acre farm in Posey County, which is considered average and typical in that area. Prior to the AAA program we had been producing about 35 acres of wheat and 25 acres of corn, which under past acreage allotments was reduced to an average of about 23 acres of wheat and 18 acres of corn, which was also my average for the years 1952 and 1953.

My present wheat allotment as of August 7, 1953, is 14 acres or a reduction of 39 percent. I, myself, along with many other farmers who have been continuous cooperators and following a good land-use program, during the years when it was not compulsory, are now actually being penalized for having done so. We certainly do not feel responsible for this wheat-acreage increase and feel we are being most unjustly dealt with, while noncooperating large producers and those who have by "land hog" methods raised their acreage to a high base. Therefore, we feel that in any cutting the "chips should certainly fall under the tree upon which they grew.'

I hope you can readily see that it will be utterly impossible to operate under this curtailed program, even granting parity prices; maintaining fixed expenditures such as taxes, maintenance of buildings, and equipment and a right for a decent living on these family-sized farms, which are the backbone of America. Neither can we compete with large-scale cattle producers under present market outlooks; likewise the poultry business which used to pay the grocery bill has also been ruined by commercial producers and the sad fact is we often find these large producers to be people of other businesses who have no financial need for such operations at all.

May I deviate here to explain that I mean no offense to bona fide producers who are making a legitimate living thereby, and undoubtedly helped expand the poultry market. They have only a desire, it seems, to do something in a big way, as evidenced by the fact that practically any magazine you pick up pictures the glorification of large operations and mass production. Such reductions will also result in a loss of Federal taxes to the Government.

Secondly, we object to the general principle of the recent referendum and challenge the right of the Department of Agriculture or any division or agency thereof to cut a producer beyond a minimum limit, thus ruling him out, before he can have any voice in the matter. This is most certainly in violation of an individual's rights of free enterprise and smacks of Communist or Gestapo tactics which cannot be tolerated

by any freedom-loving American citizen. Were this procedure followed in the other farm commodity fields the small farmer and past cooperator would simply be squeezed out of the picture without a voice in the matter.

As for the result of the referendum, it might not have been appreciably changed, as any clear-thinking person knows the alternative of greater supplies and no Government support would have been equaly bad.

Therefore, it is evident that we can likewise not operate without price supports, so long as other basic industries receive Government supports or subsidies and tariff protection, and so long as the tremendous spread between producers' price and consumer cost keeps increasing. Check price differentiation between farm commodities and machinery, using tractors and automobiles as an example: you will find prices have as much as tripled since about 1938. This is entirely out of line with present farm prices and cannot continue without serious consequences. Agriculture, industry, and labor should work toward a leveling off in this rising trend, which has become like a rolling snowball. You will note that the price of whole-wheat bread just recently advanced 1 cent, while wheat is down. This is certainly not conducive to greater consumption and indicates that the farm price is only a trifling factor in the final product. So the squeeze is put on the producer while industry and labor set their figure and it is simply take or leave it.

Therefore, it behooves industry, labor, and agriculture to resolve a new and equitable parity price level, or it becomes imperative that Government controls again be placed on major consumer goods to balance costs with a controlled agricultural market.

I further recommend that every possible means be considered in striving for an equitable international distribution system, so that the millions of starving and undernourished people may relieve us of our surplus. May I tell you that I think this is very important. Inasmuch as God has blessed us with these products, I feel it would be cheaper to use them than bullets and human lives to wrest the poverty-stricken nations from the threatening grip of communism.

Along this line the two-price system might have some merit enabling other nations to purchase at the world market level, while the overproducer would be continually aware of the lower value of the excess production.

In the event production controls must be resorted to, in fairness to past cooperators, acreages should be established on a practical land-use basis instead of past crop history. This, in itself, would go a long way to alleviate overproduction of grains, and in the not too distant future we may need the better fertility of our soil to feed the rapidly increasing population.

While we are shaping this long-range program the small producer and past cooperator should be given some relief by raising the minimum to at least 20 acres- -as in the case of wheat, other commodities would apply the same always keeping in mind that he only asks for an equitable place under the sun and is entitled to and cherishes his rights and freedom as an American citizen.

As a closing, let me give you the parity prices on wheat and a tractor as an example. I purchased a two-plow tractor in 1938 for $707, when wheat was selling at the distressingly low price of 83

cents. This identical tractor today sells for $2,600. Based upon this ratio wheat should be anywhere from $2.50 to $3 per bushel. We feel, if industry and labor ask $2,600 for this tractor today, which they may be justified in doing to maintain their standard of living, they should be willing to purchase wheat products or other farm commodities based on an equitable price ratio with these major consumer items.

Remember that as I said before, bread has increased 1 cent since wheat dropped from $2 to $1.71. As to the two-price system, I feel that after following a pactical land-use program, grain production would be considerably reduced, leaving much less for excess production. If a farmer should for some reason, in filling out a certain field, exceed his acreage as established by the practical land-use program. then he could sell the excess production at the world market price. Thank you.

Mr. HARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Meier.

The Chair now recognizes Urba Carter of Gaston.

STATEMENT OF URBA CARTER, OF GASTON, IND.

Mr. CARTER. Ladies and gentlemen, I am a farmer from Delaware County, never did anything but farm, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here to say a few things that I would like to say.

Being persons who are vitally interested in the success of American agriculture, I am sure that you are well aware of the various phases of today's farm problem. In considering this situation, let us first look at some facts which point all too plainly at agriculture's sore spots.

It is pretty well agreed that the most depressing factor in the farm-price situation has been the loss of exports. This loss is said to constitute 10 percent of this country's total net farm income. Probably the part that is least recognized is that we planned it that way. Right from the end of Wirld War II American efforts, through loans, give-away dollars, technical help, and other forms of encouragement, have been bent toward increasing production abroad. Judging from the results as expressed in our declining farm exports, this has been, and is continuing to be, a very successful effort.

What these planners failed to allow for was that, as exports decreased, we must either increase our own consumption or decrease our production if we wished to avoid the following surpluses and their unfavorable effects on prices. Now the blow is falling. Unfortunately, the planners who arranged for this situation neglected to prepare the necessary cushion for American agriculture to use when the need came. After all, when an industry has gone along for a dozen years with shortages as its major headache, it doesn't get used to surpluses overnight.

The pork imports into this country during a recent period have totaled more per day than the total imports of pork during the entire year of 1946. Only at two previous times in the country's history have these imports ever reached such heights. Certainly it is agreed that increased imports such as this can do nothing but harm to the American farm economy in adding to the condition of surpluses which now so painfully exists.

Herschel Newsom, National Grange master, predicts that Government funds tied up in farm commodities under the present price

support program may well reach the total of the $6 billion authorized by Congress by early 1954. Newsom also added that "storage charges alone for farm products now owned by the Commodity Credit Corporation are running at the rate of better than $400,000 a day."

It must surely be obvious to farmers that piling of grain into metal bins to deteriorate, hiding butter away by the millions of pounds in cold storage to spoil, dyeing surplus potatoes purple to keep them off dinner tables, and other ramifications of the present program represent failure somewhere along the line.

Programs which pay the farmer out of the Public Treasury to produce commodities which simply go into storage do not make sense. Neither do companion controls which bribe farmers to take acreages out of production and encourage them to exploit their remaining acreage in an effort to produce as much on fewer acres as they did previously on the total. At the present time, seven counties in eastern Indiana are following the example of some of the Southern States and actually going all out in an effort to promote the production of more beef cattle, and they are doing this in the face of sharply falling beef prices.

Yet the farmer is forced to go along with this kind of thing because he has no choice. Contrary to popular belief, few farmers are so prosperous that they can afford to humor their political or economic beliefs.

Living with the faults of the present program may often seem to be easier than bucking the tide toward something better. But there is danger in this. The politicians, intent on turning handsprings to keep the voters happy, may mistake this reluctant agreeableness for the true desire of the farmer.

In summarizing, I would like to make these recommendations as points to be considered in formulating some sort of procedure with which to bring a stability to our agricultural economy:

1. Cultivation of foreign markets; or less giveaway and more salesmanship.

2. Encouragement of adequate grain storage on the farms. 3. Revision of tariff laws in favor of American production.

4. Encouragement of farmers to work out credit problems with their home bank.

I thank you.

Mr. HARVEY. Thank you very much, Urba Carter.

The Chair next recognizes Harry S. Eby.

STATEMENT OF HARRY S. EBY, PRESIDENT OF INDIANA STATE ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT SUPERVISORS

Mr. EBY. Mr. Chairman, members of the House Agriculture Committee, I want to say that it is indeed a privilege for me to come before you and express the opinions of a group of men in the State of Indiana that I consider as good a group as you can gather anywhere. I represent the Indiana State Association of Soil Conservation District Supervisors. My testimony to you is going to vary somewhat with what you have listened to today. I am here talking to you in behalf of the soil-conservation-district movement. I am not going to follow the prepared statement that I have. I do want to say at this time that I want to divide my time. I would like to have about 6 minutes. I