Guaranteed extension of Federal education, health, housing, road-improvement, and public-works programs to rural areas.

Federal aid toward elimination of the sharecropping and tenant-farming systems for the purpose of helping these farmers buy the land they are working.

THE RESTORATION OF PEACE AND FOREIGN TRADE TO PROVIDE A MARKET FOR FARM

PRODUCTS

The cold and Korean wars have been extremely injurious to the people of this country. Millions of our sons have been drafted into the Armed Forces; there have been 140,000 American casualties and 25,000 American dead.

The country's program of rearmament has been constantly expanded, creating a crushing economic burden for our people and depriving them of the great potential of vastly improved standard of living. Instead of building prosperity, the arms program has brought us to the very edge of economic crisis and job insecurity.

For farmers the cold war has already led to depression. In the midst of enormous spending for armaments, the farmers' share of the national income will reach a 20-year low-a figure lower than in some of the worst depression years. The cold war has undermined the consuming market for farmer products in this country. It has created a condition whereby the corporations have been able to maintain high prices for the products the farmer uses, while speculators and commodity brokers reaped the lush profits during the short periods when farm prices had skyrocketed.

Under the pretext of the cold war the farmer has been subjected to a heavy burden of taaxtion while essential farm services such as rural electrification and farm conservation have been cut to the bone.

The cold war has also shrunk the market for farm products and industrial equipment. With half the world we will not trade. The other half of the world is being forced to spend its shrinking trade balances and credits for military equipment instead of for food.

Recent United Nations publications have found that food consumption in most European nations, the Middle East, and in Asia and the Far East, is still below pre-World War II levels. But in the scramble for dollar exchange by the countries abroad military exports gained 87 percent between 1951 and 1952, chiefly at the expense of farm exports, which dropped 15 percent. This displacement of farm exports by military exports has been aggravated in 1953, when in the first 6 months of 1953 farm exports fell 30 percent as comared to the same period in 1952, while military exports increased 151 percent.

It is clear that war is no solution to the farm problem; nor is it a solution to the workers' problem of low purchasing power. War only aggravates the economic problems of the people.

UE PROGRAM FOR PEACE AND PROSPERITY

Without peace there cannot be prosperity, neither for the worker nor for the farmer. We, therefore, urge the members of this House Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to support fully a policy for peace based on serving the interests of the common people. It involves the following program:

1. There are no differences between the nations of the world which cannot be settled by peaceful negotiations. We repeat with growing hope our appeal, now significantly stated by Adlai Stevenson, that the great powers of the world join in special conference to end the cold war. We urge the vital preservation of the United Nations as a forum for peace rather than as an arena of power politics.

2. We call for the drastic disarmament of all nations in the interests of peace and the improvement of the living standards of the people.

3. Barriers to peaceful trade between all sections of the world should be abolished.

Further information concerning the program and policies of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE) may be secured from any of the following UE district offices:

Sterling O. Neal, president, UE district 7, 365 West First Street, Dayton 2, Ohio. Don W. Harris, president, UE district 8, 21001⁄2 Third Avenue, Rock Island, Ill. John T. Gojack, president, UE district 9, 1835 South Calhoun Street, Fort Wayne 5, Ind.

Ernest Demaio, president, UE district 11, 37 South Ashland Boulevard, Chicago, Ill.

Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you. I think we have heard now from most of the witnesses representing organizations. There are some exceptions. We will grant them additional time as we proceed on the list. Now we will proceed with the individuals. They will be given 3 minutes each. I have asked the keeper of the bell down here to sound the bell when 212 minutes of the 3-minute period have expired, which will permit the witness then to wind up his testimony in that period. We still will permit him to file a more lengthy statement if he so desires.

The first witness in this new category to be recognized for 3 minutes will be a distinguished Iowan, our former Governor, Robert D. Blue, of Eagle Grove.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT D. BLUE, FORMER GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF IOWA

Mr. BLUE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, first of all I would like to say to say to the committee that I come from the heart of the cash grain area of Iowa, that I have some land interests located in four of those counties, and that I am, in addition to being a farm owner, a farm operator, as well as being a practicing lawyer.

My clients are farmers, business and professional people who depend upon farming for their living. As has been so well said by the chairman of this committee, farming has ceased to be a way of life and has become a big business. Farmers today occupy the envíable position of having increased their productivity more than any other business in the United States of America, and are the most efficient producers in the country. We have a surplus. It has been said by the chairman of this committee that that is the nub of the farm problem, and so it is.

One of the great defects in the present farm problem is that where acreage control has been instituted in order to obviate the surplus of one particular type of product, that land has gone into production and produced either fiber or feed units which have come in competition with other price supported products.

If the surplus is to be eliminated when acreage controls are imposed, it must be necessary that the land which is taken out of production in one area must not be permitted to be put into some crop that will be in competition with some kind of crop that is under support control in another area. There is an element here that I think is very important which is a part of every business and every government, and that is the question of confidence. I hate to say this, gentlemen, but I believe it to be a fact: Confidence of the farm population of Iowa, and other Midwestern States, has been shaken and seriously shaken, and that to a substantial degree has contributed to surplus because corn farmers went into excess production thinking that this was the last year.

The next and last point that I probably have time to make is this: The giving of food to East Germany was one of the most dramatic peace offensives that the world has ever seen. It forced the Malenkov regime into full retreat and they have cut down armament production, and increased tractor production in order to increase food production. Food is the key to peace in Asia. The population of the world is increasing at the rate of over 25 million people per year. The food

surplus of today will be a food scarcity in less than 10 years, and this committee must recognize that fact.

Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Blue.

The next witness is Mr. William O. Perdue, of Wisconsin.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM O. PERDUE, MANAGER OF PURE MILK PRODUCTS COOPERATIVE, FOND DU LAC, WIS.

Mr. PERDUE. My name is William O. Perdue, general manager of Pure Milk Products Cooperative, Fond du Lac, Wis., the largest milk producer's cooperative in America. We have 18,000 dairy farmers who produced 1,666,000,000 pounds of milk last year. 729 million pounds of this milk was sold through Federal orders at Milwaukee and Chicago. 937 million pounds was sold for manufactured dairy products to privately owned plants in Wisconsin.

I appear here today in the main to contradict and refute the testimony given on the part of a witness at Minneapolis on October 12. The testimony I refer to is that testimony offered in opposition to Federal milk orders.

Federal milk orders were brought into being in 1937 to establish fair prices, uniform prices, and to give dairy farmers a voice in fixing the prices of their products, at a time when prices were at the lowest that the Nation had experienced. This legislation was sponsored by the dairy farmers of America united behind a single program. After the Federal orders came into being, they were attached by most every large milk buyer in the Nation.

They were attacked in the courts of our land from the low court to the high court. Fortunately, the order stood the test of the Supreme Court of our Nation. They were attacked in the Halls of Congress. They stood the test of debate of our Congress. Now we stand at the threshold of losing this great piece of legislation which gave the dairy farmers the right to have voice in fixing the price of their milk. It would be the answer to the prayer of almost the same group of large dealers as that which attacked the orders in the early thirties.

I heard a witness testify at the hearing at Minneapolis on the 12th asking the Congress either to offer crippling amendments to the act or to repeal the act entirely. This witness claimed the orders have provisions that work hardships upon producers. The witness enumerated the several provisions offensive to him.

I now offer for the committee's consideration four copies of a proposed Federal milk order which this same witness petitioned the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a hearing for the purpose of issuing an order in his marketing area. It contains every one of the provisions this witness condemned in his testimony before this committee on the 12th of October.

I appeal to this committee and to the cooperative leaders of America and to the dairy farmers of this Nation to look with solemn consideration upon this legislation. I appeal to this committee to ignore the testimony that was given at the Minneapolis hearing in opposition to the Federal orders. No Federal order any place in this United States prohibits any dairy farmer from participating in that order.

A dairy farmer living on the outside of the city limits of Des Moines could ship his milk to any Federal order in this Nation if that farmer could meet the sanitary requirements of the cities where those orders

are in operation. The statement that Federal orders prohibit the orderly marketing of dairy products is absolutely without foundation. No Federal order ever worked a hardship on any group of dairy farmers unless that particular group was seeking to gain an advantage over the farmers under a Federal order.

In conclusion, I would like to reemphasize my plea to this committee that it is time now for all of us to unite behind a sound program for agriculture and get united action for a program of self-help for dairy farmers a program which Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Ezra T. Benson, has asked the dairy farmers to come up with. It is high time that we stop petty bickering and try to work unitedly for a sound program.

I yield the rest of my time to Mr. Eckles and will concur in the statement that he will make.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. ECKLES, MANAGER, PURE MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. ECKLES. I am Bill Eckles, residing in Mission, Kans., manager of the Pure Milk Producers Association in Kansas City, Mo. I have a statement here I would like to present. This is submitted in behalf of cooperative marketing associations with thousands of grade-A milk producers, members in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Iowa. These dairy farmers produce grade-A milk for consumption in the major markets of these States. They are the source of the daily supply of this very essential food for practically all the consumers in the major markets of the States. The value of their milk production at farm values runs into millions of dollars each month, and is more than doubled in value at the processing and industrial level.

On practically all of these markets the prices paid these grade-A milk producers are established by Federal milk-marketing orders issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, under Federal law known as the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended.

These orders are issued at the request of dairy farmers and dairyfarm organizations. Before they are issued by the Department of Agriculture thorough hearings are held, tentative orders are presented, and exceptions and recommended changes are fully considered. And, finally, two-thirds or more of the dairy farmers must approve their final issuance.

The dairy farmers of these cooperative marketing associations are vitally interested in having this program of the United States Department of Agriculture maintained and the laws under which they are issued retained in an ever stronger position. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act and the orders issued thereunder are outgrowths of the past efforts of all interests in developing a workable, legal program to prevent chaotic conditions such as existed in the late twenties and early nineteen thirties in the fluid-milk markets of this Nation. This act was passed by Congress to secure for dairy farmers a fair return for their agricultural efforts. It provides that orders shall encourage the production of an adequate supply of pure wholesome milk for the consuming public.

In our opinion, this has been one of the outstanding farm programs of the United States Department of Agriculture. It is in a field of

marketing that regulates the world's finest food. They regulate the marketing of the most perishable of all food commodities, a product that has to be marketed daily.

These programs in more than 50 metropolitan milk markets of America have brought a high degree of economic stability and orderly marketing of this highly perishable and essential food. This program has been designed to stimulate the production of such quantities of grade A fluid milk are are needed to supply consumer demand and needs. They recognize the necessity of the control of the product from the public-health standpoint. Milk and its derivatives in fluid form-cream, milk drinks-are of enormous public-health significance. This phase of the agricultural program must at all costs be maintained and preserved as it has operated in the past. The orders are applicable to America's greatest agricultural enterprise, dairying. It is our opinion that the fluid-milk order program authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 should be expanded in many other areas including the production of milk for manufacturing uses, for example, that production going into butter, cheese, powder, and evaporated milk.

Our decision in this matter is prompted by the fact that the United States Department of Agriculture has a farm-support program on dairying which is supposed to reflect a 90 percent of parity return to dairy farmers for milk. A review of the records exhibit A— shows that farmers are not receiving 90 percent of parity for their milk production that goes into manufacturing uses in spite of large expenditures by the Government for purchases of finished dairy products.

We believe that it is essential that the Federal Government insure the dairy farmers of the Nation that 90 perecnt of parity is reflected to them at the farm level. The present support program is substantially a subsidization and support program to the processors and manufacturers of milk products. This is accomplished as a result of the Government buying the finished products rather than seeing that producers are paid 90 percent of parity. We feel that dairy farmers could have the assurance of their return of 90 percent of parity as intended by Congress if milk-order programs were expanded so that purchasers of the milk who produce the manufactured product were required to pay dairy farmers minimum prices that can be provided for through Federal milk orders issued under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act.

The only other conceivable way of assuring producers of the returns intended by Congress under Federal farm-support legislation

are:

1. Payments to dairy farmers of subsidies representing the difference between the value received for their milk and 90 percent of parity values, in other words, principles of the Brannan plan.

2. Requirements on the part of the purchasers of milk and processing to certify to the Department of Agriculture that they have paid producers 90 percent of parity for their milk production before the Government would buy their butter, cheese, and powder.

We respectfully urge that the Federal milk-order program be not only maintained in its present form, but expanded in many other areas so that its benefits can accrue to additional dairy farmers of the Nation, particularly in the manufacturing milk field.