nuts, and tobacco should be provided: Under present legislation, acreage allotments and price supports for the basic crops are determined by statistical formulas. Under these formulas, the permitted acreages are sharply restrictive. Allotments for certain crops may have to be reduced even further under present law, despite growing evidence that acreage restrictions have not brought about needed adjustments.

Farmers need more freedom to plant. Authority should be provided for the Secretary of Agriculture to increase acreage allotments by up to 50 percent above the levels determined by existing formulas, in accordance with certain criteria.

The law already specifies that the Secretary may provide price support at levels above those determined by formula, and this authority has been used. The law should also provide authority to increase acreage allotments when the mechanistic statistical formula yields results clearly contrary to the general interest. Authority of the type requested is being used in the case of tobacco.

However, any acreage increases must be related to price adjustments designed to permit the growth of markets needed to absorb the higher production.

Agriculture cannot properly use its resources while it is hampered by controls that cannot adequately control.

Acreage allotments for corn should be eliminated:

It is proposed that acreage allotments for corn be eliminated beginning with the 1959 crop. Acreage allotments have not been effective in reducing corn acreage and production. As a result, the carryover of corn as of October 1, 1957, was at a record high, in excess of 13 billion bushels.

During the last 20 years the commercial corn area spread from 566 counties in 12 States to 932 counties in 26 States. The legal requirements have forced a steady expansion in the extent of controls to which farmers are being subjected.

Farmers have voted to eliminate corn acreage allotments both with their corn planters and in the referendum held in December 1956. In this referendum over 61 percent of the corn farmers voting indicated their preference for a program of the type recommended. Only 14 percent of the 1957 production in the commercial corn area was eligible for price support because relatively few farmers complied with allot

ments.

Removing corn allotments will be a forward step in the direction of more freedom for farmers. Price supports would be provided at a level between 60 and 90 percent of parity for corn using the eight guidelines now provided in the Agricultural Act of 1949 for the nonmandatory nonbasic commodities.

The escalator clauses in the basic law should be abolished: That is essential. This law requires that price supports be raised as the surplus is reduced. This means that incentives are provided to build new surpluses as soon as present surpluses start to decrease. This keeps farm people continually under the shadow of price-depressing surpluses.

Since our surplus disposal and soil-bank programs have ben effective in reducing surpluses, these escalator requirements are already operating in the direction of building more surpluses. Elimination of

these escalator clauses is necessary if these programs are to achieve their purpose.

The overall range within which price supports may be provided should be substantially widened: Presently, price supports must be provided for most types of tobacco at 90 percent of parity and for cotton, wheat, corn, rice, peanuts, and dairy products between 75 and 90 percent of parity. This range is too narrow to permit the expansion of markets needed to absorb the increased production which our farms will likely produce.

Rather than determining price supports for the basic commodities by formula between 75 and 90 percent of parity, price supports should be determined administratively in a wider range from 60 to 90 percent of parity. This range should also apply to dairy products.

The criterion for determining the specific support level for dairy products could well continue as at present; namely, a level which will assure an adequate supply. The criteria for determining the specific support levels for the 6 basic crops should be the same 8 guidelines as now apply to almost all other farm products, some 250 in total.

The Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act should be extended: Public Law 480, the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, should be extended for another year to June 30, 1959, with an additional authorization of $1.5 billion for title I sales for foreign currencies. The extension has been approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Public Law 480 exports have made a major contribution in the attainment of an alltime high in total United States agricultural exports of $4.7 billion in 1956-57. In the fiscal year, they accounted for these parts of total exports: Wheat, three-fifths; rice, four-fifths; vegetable oils, about one-half; cotton, about one-third; corn, two-fifths. In proposing the increased authorization, we are asking primarily for the opportunity to use commodities already paid for under the price-support program, or which otherwise would be acquired under such operations.

This act should not be considered a permanent part of the farm program. Therefore, we have limited our extension request to 1 year. This will facilitate the periodic review by Congress of program results in the light of our agricultural situation, and in terms of needs abroad.

A LOOK AHEAD

Agricultural abundance is one of the cornerstones of our economy. But farmers and the entire citizenry need assurance that our farm programs will allow abundance to be put to good use.

In these days of cold war, we cannot afford to waste land, manpower, machinery, gasoline, tires, and electricity in producing foods and fiber for storage far in excess of sensible reserves. The effects spread to other segments of the economy. For example, our surpluses forced us to build bins far beyond normal needs-a waste of labor, an uneconomic use of steel and other materials. It is sheer economic waste to produce through Government incentive products that are not needed. No one wants less effective programs for farmers. On the contrary, we must replace policies and programs which have failed with meas

ures which will assure the American farmer his rightful share in the abundance of our free economy.

There is reason for great optimism about the future of agriculture provided we cling fast to the methods and ideals which have made this Nation great.

There are many basic reasons why our agricultural future should be bright.

First, we face an expanding domestic and foreign market. In 1940, our population numbered about 132 million. Today we are 173 million, and by 1975 the Nation may have well over 200 million. Moreover, our people are interested in better diets and this presents a challenge for sound food promotion.

World population, too, has been increasing. Many areas will continue to look to surplus-producing land, such as the United States, for food. There is real hope, therefore, for an expanding export market for our farm products.

Second, there is hope that future Government programs will be geared to more realistic production; that we shall not continue to freeze production in uneconomic patterns; that our programs will provide proper incentives for agriculture to adjust output of specific commodities according to demand.

Third, the efficiency of agricultural production will rise and, as efficiency rises, costs can come down. We must continue to expand programs of agricultural research and education.

Fourth, farm people will benefit by improvements in marketing. In the past, most of the effort in agricultural research and education has been directed toward improving methods of production. Thus, productive efficiency has bounded ahead, but progress in marketing methods has lagged. The remedy for this lack of balance is to give more emphasis to marketing and utilization research, as we are now doing. Finally, a sound economy will create an economic climate in which farm prosperity can flower and grow. And, conversely, a strong productive agriculture will be one of the pillars of a flourishing national prosperity.

This, I know. Great opportunities confront our farm familiesgreat opportunities accompanied by great responsibilities. Our Nation of the future will be as strong as our agriculture.

Once again may I say that I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee. The Department stands ready to help you in every possible way.

APPENDIX A. NUMBER OF FARM PEOPLE ASSISTED IN THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

EXPANSION OF JOB OPPORTUNITIES

Employment opportunities in counties participating in the rural development program are being expanded through three principal

methods:

(1) Assistance in establishing new manufacturing or marketing facilities, or expanding existing facilities.

(2) Training programs to improve the skills of rural people or provide new skills.

(3) Employment interviewing and guidance.

Participants in the rural development program have played a direct part in projects to increase local job opportunities.

They have helped in assembling manpower and other resource information for use by prospective manufacturers, interviewing job applicants, promoting the countywide program, and encouraging increased farm production where it is needed to supply new processing facilities.

Whenever capital funds are required for purchase of sites, construction, or other purposes, funds are raised locally by such methods as subscription or sale of stock initiated by community leadership. Some typical job expansion projects in pilot counties assisted by rural development are:

Chilton County, Ala., 25 new jobs, timber cutting and handling.
Perry County, Ind., 50 jobs, small-boat manufacturing.
Watauga County, N. C., 100 jobs, garment manufacturing.
Macon County, Tenn., 475 jobs, garment manufacturing.

Choctaw County, Okla., 30 jobs, woodworking and grain cooperatives.

Camp-Franklin-Titus County area, Tex., 130 jobs, poultry

processing.

Price County, Wis., 54 jobs, woodworking, charcoal manufacturing, and sport fishing equipment (most of this employment in a factory scheduled to begin operation in the summer of 1958). Chesterfield County, S. C., 58 jobs, poultry-farm work. Berkeley County, S. C., 70 jobs, general farmwork.

Tippah County, Miss., clothing plant expanding production, adding 150 jobs.

Training programs to improve the skills of rural people have also been started in several States, as a direct result of the rural development program. In Kentucky, for example, about 500 people in eastern and south central counties have received training in such skills as welding, plumbing, and office practices.

On-the-farm interviews and surveys will provide employment offices and prospective employers with information needed for industrial and employment expansion. The Arkansas Department of Labor, as a result of rural development, cooperated in making labor surveys on 1,000 farms in 3 demonstration counties. Other States, including Texas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Maine, and Indiana, have made similar surveys as initial projects in demonstration counties. These efforts are pointed toward reaching permanent solutions to the problem of rural underemployment.

WORK WITH FAMILIES ON SMALL FARMS

Through intensive on-the-farm counseling, advice on soil, woodland and water conservation and management, introduction of new crops, help in evaluating farmers' resources and potential, many families on small farms in pilot areas are being assisted in building more efficient units.

According to reports we have received from workers in a representative group of 27 pilot counties in 16 States, about 4,500 families on small farms have received such help. These are the families bene

fiting most from the introduction of a rural development program in their areas. The assistance that is provided includes expanded farm and home development resulting from the assignment of special workers to the program. It also includes special projects, such as pepper growing in an isolated Tennessee community, the first commercial farm product to be grown there; combined strawberry production and marketing in several counties; greatly expanded sheep raising in West Virginia communities; poultry and dairy improvement and expansion in many pilot counties in the Southeast.

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

Many rural families have also received, directly or indirectly, the benefit of better health promotion resulting from the work of agency personnel and local leaders participating in the rural development program.

Here are some examples: In Covington County, Miss., a Negro community of 40 families, with guidance from the development group, organized a home life committee to encourage members to improve sanitation. Immunization programs have been started, wells tested, and other sanitary measures taken in Bertie County, N. C. One hundred families in a Texas county improved their homes and farms through a cooperative community campaign. Fifty percent more children in Hardin County, Tenn., are receiving preschool health examinations as a result of community efforts. In 3 States (Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky) and 6 pilot counties, rural development promotion helped raise matching funds to build hospitals serving families in these areas.

FINANCIAL RESULTS OF RURAL AREA DEVELOPMENT

The rural development program is a long-range effort meeting difficult, deep-seated problems. It is too early to put results in terms of dollars and cents. However, we can use as a yardstick the locally initiated programs of area development which have remade many underdeveloped rural areas during the past decade. One of these, in the area of Asheville, N. C., has this record to its credit:

Estimated gross farm income for the area increased from $63 million in 1950 to $90 million in 1956.

Since this porgram was started, the number of grade A dairy farms on the Asheville milkshed has increased from 312 to 555, with over 700 in the area. Milk sales by these dairymen have risen $3 million during this period. The area has changed from a milkimporting to a milk-exporting region.

From 1950 to 1956, sales of poultry and poultry products by farmers climbed from $4,500,000 to $17,206,500.

Production of commercial broiler chickens jumped from 500,000 in 1950 to 10,500,000 in 1956.

Hatching egg production has gone from a "pin money" proposition to an industry which paid growers $9,775,000 in 1956.

There has been increased recognition by town and city people of the importance of a healthy rural economy. Most important, development of the area has progressed at an accelerated pace, bringing greater economic opportunities and more social stability.