and milk, and hogs, and perhaps a beef now and then he was able to take that little tract of land and make a good living for himself and family. But the way he worked it there would be no benefit for me, as the owner, to keep it. Now my income on that farm, $15 for 100 acres of land, represents about 12 percent and after I had paid the taxes I would not have that.

What I am trying to tell you is that in this legislation you ought to incorporate this theory that you would not buy a man a farm that was bigger than it was capable of producing a good livelihood for himself and family and to meet his amortization payments on his loan.

Now, there ought not to be any speculation. We ought to prevent any man buying any big tract of land and having it worked by tenants. I do not thing that ought to be permitted. If this bill has any merit it has the merit of getting the man back on the farm himself, and inducing that man to till that soil and become the owner of it and have a home which would build up the traditions of stability and of prosperity.

Now, I think you ought also to include a requirement that he must integrate his program with the Government soil-rebuilding program and the Government's soil-conservation program and the general agricultural program. Now, the man who owns a place can do that so much better and with so much better grace than a tenant. If he is a tenant, he may say, "Well, I am going to move next year, or I may have to move. What do I want to work out such a program on this farm for, or why should I terrace it. Why should I want to stop the soil washing down in the gully with every rain, when I may be renting from the man down the road next year." But if the man owns his place, or even if he has only a little equity in it and has paid a little down on it and every time he finds a ditch forming across the land, washing the soil away, he will take a particular occasion to build it up, through terracing, and you will have a farmer that is more capable of cultivating that land if he is the land owner; he will be interested in cooperating with the land utilization plan of the Government, which will add to his investment, add to the whole industry, and will add to the economic development of the whole agricultural population.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that is about all I wanted to offer. The CHAIRMAN. We desire to thank you, Senator, and appreciate your suggestions.

Senator CONNALLY. Let me say this further, encouraged by your indulgence and courtesy, on this question we are talking about, soil conservation and the question of land utilization. Really, I think the soil-conservation program offers one of the greatest opportunities of anything that I know of in the agricultural line. Last summer I visited some of the conservation stations, and it was absolutely marvelous the results that some of them are obtaining. For instance, they will go into a little hilly country where the soil is sandy, sorry and poor. Instead of trying to cultivate all of the land, they allow some to go back to sod; they set out some Bermuda, or some other kind of good grass in order to bring back a good turf so that soil is prevented from washing away, and also prevents erosion from the other land. It affords the owner who ordinarily would not have any

income from that part of the land an opportunity to bring in some revenue from livestock grazed on it. That is just one example of what you can see going on on many of the farms in east Texas, where some of this land had been in cultivation for probably 75 or 100 years, and had been eroded, the soil depleted, and under this system of land utilization by which they are taking that depleted land out of cultivation, and rebuilding it, so it may be capable of production. The results obtained were marvelous, and the enthusiasm among the farmers in that area was tremendous. With that soil-rebuilding program, with the owner working the land, and maintaining that land, he does not have to have more than 50, 75, or 100 acres to produce everything he needs, with a sufficient income to meet his payments. The CHAIRMAN. We desire to thank you.

Senator CONNALLY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. Just one other thing: There ought to be a local committee in every county to pass upon the applicants. And I think the bill ought to provide that preference shall be given to men who are already farming, men who are thrifty farmers, so that we will get a demonstration of this thing. If we are going to take a lot of inexperienced people out of towns and put them out on farms and try to start this off, the program may collapse. But if you take men who have been tenants and the committee finds that over a period of years they have been making a living, that they have been successful while they have been tenants on the land, and put them on these tracts it will demonstrate what can be accomplished through this whole program.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, I believe most of the members of the committee are in agreement with you.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I would like to ask the Senator a question, if I may. Senator CONNALLY. Yes.

Mr. ANDRESEN. There are two theories under this bill: One is that we should help the uppers, and the other is that we should help the inefficient sharecropper, or tenant, and those who cannot get credit elsewhere. You rather indicate that we should go into this program by selecting the thrifty tenant, those who have made good, in order to demonstrate that this program can be made successful.

Senator CONNALLY. Well, now, may I ask you a question. If you want to make it a success you would not select the inefficient, the man who had not made a success at anything, would you?

Mr. ANDRESEN. Well, we have had a discussion of those two theories. I was just trying to find your position on them.

Senator CONNALLY. Let us help both of them. But so far as this purchase program is concerned, my judgment would be that you ought to start in with the thrifty farmer. There would not be any reason, it seems to me, in starting this kind of a program, if we want to go into it, unless we are going to select the men who will make a go of it, men who have shown some ability in making a living for themselves on the farm. What good would it do to give a farm to a man who has never made a success at anything else in his life? Now, I think with regard to the less fortunate tenants, that legislation probably could be devised so as to improve the relation between the tenants and the landlords until the tenants can build themselves up to a point where they become eligible for the benefits.

of this act. I do not think you are going to make a success of this thing if you are going to take men who have been living in town, or in cities, or any other place, take people who have never made a success of anything in their lives, and who never will be a success; they have never made a living and never will make a living; you put them out on a place and give them some Government money and they will just last as long as the Government money comes in. Mr. ANDRESEN. I agree with you, Senator.

Mr. MITCHELL. What do you think about the prospects of a coal miner who has been used to receiving $6 or $8 a day going into a program like this? He has not had any previous background as a farmer.

Senator CONNALLY. Exactly. It would be just like taking a tenant, with a farm background, and putting him in a coal mine.

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes; the miner would not be interested in farming. Senator CONNALLY. And the tenant would not be interested in coal mining.

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.

Senator CONNALLY. That is why I think you ought to take the thrifty farmer for this program.

Mr. MITCHELL. What is your suggestion about who should be on this local committee?

Senator CONNALLY. I think probably you ought not to have all farmers on that committee. You ought to have a farmer, or farmers probably should have a businessman who knows the applicant's credit standing and what he has been doing, or maybe two farmers, so as to get a balanced committee. I think that the committee ought to pass on the applications of these people.

Mr. PIERCE. Would you limit the amount to $3,000?

Senator CONNALLY. I do not think you could fix an arbitrary amount for every section.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say, Governor, in that connection there is no limitation fixed in the bill other than the average farm of the community in which the land is sold.

Senator CONNALLY. Yes.

Mr. PIERCE. There is no limit in your bill?

Senator CONNALLY. I do not think so; I do not think there is any limit in my bill. I tried to evade that because I do not think you could have an arbitrary arrangement for every section of the country. There are many sections in my State, Governor, where you could probably get a good farm for $5,000, in a good area, valuable land; I think you could take $5,000 and buy 60 or 70 acres of good farm land.

Mr. PIERCE. That is true in my section of the country.

Senator CONNALLY. My thought was there ought not to be an arbitrary limitation fixed, because in many areas the cost may run considerably above $3,000. In some sections $3,000 would be plenty, and in other sections it would not.

Mr. PIERCE. I agree with you fully.

Senator CONNALLY. You cannot afford to take the poorest quality of land. You have got to have good land; you have got to offer some inducement to the purchaser if he is going to be interested in purchasing a home.

The CHAIRMAN. We desire to thank you, Senator.
Senator CONNALLY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Johnson, we will be glad to hear

you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. LUTHER A. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am not going to take more than about 2 or 3 minutes of your time. I introduced a bill (H. R. 3590), and I am very much interested in the proposed legislation, and I endorse fully what Senator Connally has said about the low interest rate. In fact, the bill I introduced is similar to Senator Connally's bill, and provides for 2 percent interest. I just want to offer this suggestion, that I think the tenants to whom the loans are made should not be treated as colonists. I do not like the idea of letting them think they are wards of the Government. And for that reason I do not think they ought to be colonized in groups. I think they ought to be treated just like other people. I think the terms and conditions under which they buy these farms ought to be such that they will be able to operate them with a spirit of independence; and, without giving them the feeling they are wards of the Government. I want to make it so that they are given the opportunity of borrowing the money with which to buy a farm and give them the responsibility of making good.

I am pleased to know that your committee believes that when a farmer has paid a substantial payment for the land he should receive a deed. I think this should be treated on a business basis like other transactions of a similar kind between buyer and seller; because, if you do not, he is going to feel his dependence on the Government. Let us treat him like anybody else who buys a farm.

And I think the amount of these investments and the loans should be rather small. I can appreciate certain difficulties in arriving at the size of the farm, because land prices vary in different sections of the country, but the program should not permit of buying up a large tract of land, or having farms with elaborate improvements so that the purchaser could not pay it out. In other words, keep the size of the farm down, the investment down, with a low 2-percent interest rate so the purchaser will have some hope of paying it out and becoming an owner. That is the goal of the program: To give tenant farmers a chance to become home owners.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is about all. I should like to revise and extend my remarks, if that is permitted in this committee. The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. MITCHELL. Do you have any of these homestead developments in your State?

Mr. JOHNSON. The Resettlement?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Not in my immediate section.

Mr. MITCHELL. That has been the trouble.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not think it works so well, and I do not think that this program ought to become involved with that; I think the legislation ought to be such that these purchasers will be able to pay

themselves out when they buy a farm, and they should not be placed in isolated groups like colonists. Each State should be allocated an equitable portion so that discrimination in favor of or against any State or section will not be permitted.

The CHAIRMAN. We desire to thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank you for the privilege of appearing before you in behalf of this most important legislation, which, in my judgment, is badly needed to help solve the farm-tenant problem.

The CHAIRMAN. Next, we will hear Congressman Binderup.

STATEMENT OF HON. C. G. BINDERUP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Mr. BINDERUP. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I hope I may not take a single minute unnecessarily. I realize the importance of your time and how much you have to do. But, there is nothing that I am more interested in than this very movement, and not just at the persent time, but for many years I have watched the trend of our good agricultural land going into the hands of the land speculators, and the few. So in 1930 I became so alarmed over this situation in my State that I spoke over the radio a number of times as to the seriousness of the situation. I mention that merely to give you the information that I have been tremendously interested in this subject, so that I might qualify myself, perhaps, as one who at least has had some background, on which to base my conclusions.

I wrote a little bill myself along this line, and I want to say in reference to that, that in writing that bill, it was not that I hardly expected my bill would pass, but the thought in writing that bill was that I expected to set out some principles that might be beneficial to this committee if you cared to use them in enabling you to write the committee bill, or whatever you intend to write.

A great deal has been said to me at times, "But you are going to have a set-up like the resettlement plan." In my section of the country the resettlement plan has been a decided failure. I say that without any reflection on the Administrator. I visited with Mr. Tugwell a great deal, and I had a number of conversations on this subject with him. I know the handicaps he was under from the lack of money, the magnitude of the great program with no possibility of paying out. But the set-up of the Resettlement Administration out in Nebraska may give us just a good example of how you cannot operate a program of this kind as to solving the problem of farm tenancy. It was about the same as if you sent a man across the Atlantic Ocean and gave him just half enough gasoline to make the trip.

Mr. MITCHELL. They built expensive houses?

Mr. BINDERUP. They built twice as expensive houses as they needed. The Resettlement plan cannot work here. I say, let us build on the land just what the farmers actually need; if necessary, better let him live in a paper shack until they get started on this land, and most of them can improve it themselves.

My bill provides for the direct financing by the Federal Government, embodying the principles of the Farm Loan Commissioner Act. The reason I selected the Farm Loan Commissioner Act was because it is already set up; that act has already been passed. It