STATEMENT OF BERT ALBAUGH, BROOKINGS, S. DAK.

Mr. ALBAUGH. My name is Bert Albaugh. This report is a result of a meeting in the county both of the Farm Bureau, the union, and members otherwise.

We unanimously agree to acreage reductions of basic crops by removing a percentage of all cropland from production. The reductions to be compulsory and nationwide. For example, this implies that corn acreage reductions apply to all areas raising corn and not be restricted to areas on the so-called Corn belt. The average productive capacity of the land to determine the basis for reduction.

We also felt the promotion of irrigable and submarginal land should not be promoted at this time, but at such time as supply and demand warrants. Basic research, however, should be continued in these

areas.

We feel that since Congress tolerates increased incomes from labor industry and for Congress, that the farmer also feels that he is entitled to his fair share of the national income for his labor and his investments.

The continuance of Commodity Credit Corporation was encouraged with emphasis to be placed on farm storage. Farm storage payments to be equal to those received by local and terminal elevator plus handling charges.

We urged that arrangements be made whereby commodities from the Commodity Credit Corporation bin sites be made available at a reasonable price to livestock feeders, when such commodities cannot be obtained locally. To further clarify my point: Government corn was available to the bin sites at $1.87 per bushel. I'm sure you realize that this high price will result in the corn remaining at the bin site when some local livestock feeders are desperately in need of corn. This price of $1.87 includes the support price, plus storage costs, interest and handling cost. We recommend that the storage and handling charges on this corn, should be dropped to make available to the livestock feeders a supply of corn at a reasonable price.

We urged an unbiased study of agricultural markets for wholesale and retail profits, for the purpose of determining the margin between the producer and consumer, which we felt was too wide. We also urge and insist that farmers need an actual 100 percent parity.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. THUE. We will now hear from the representative of Douglas County.

STATEMENT OF JOHANNES VANDER TWIN, HARRISON, S. DAK.

Mr. VANDER TWIN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, Douglas County ASC, Farmers Union, and Weed Board, go on record favoring the following:

1. PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM

We request 100 percent parity on all nonperishable commodities, and 90 percent on all perishable commodities. We are definitely opposed to the sliding scale.

2. ALLOTMENTS

First choice: We recommend bushel allotments rather than acreage allotments on the total cropland. This would keep all surplus on the farm where needed. Grain would be marketed by cards or books in the same order as marketing quotas, and no more grain released than the Govenment can use for home consumption and exports.

Second choice: We recommend an attractive incentive payment for the take-out acres to encourage more farmers to take part in the program. And not to put any soil-depleting crops in such acres. Also not to be allowed to harvest a crop for hay, seed, or pasture, off takeout acres. We recommend a limit of $2,000 on this practice.

3. TOTAL SUPPORT PRICE

We recommend that no loans be made to any one farmer or corporation to the excess of $40,000 in any one crop year.

4. IMPORTS

We are definitely opposed to imports of grain in such amounts to the extent that it hurts our market.

5. REGARD TO SCS APPROPRIATIONS

If 5 percent more money is needed by the SCS that money should be appropriated directly to it rather than be taken out of ASC funds in each county. The SCS has its own technical responsibility in earth moving, and funds should be appropriated directly for that purpose. In Douglas County the SCS was given $1,965 for technical assistance. The total allocation for practices for which the SCS is responsible is $9,000. So instead of getting 5 percent for its technical assistance it is getting 21.8 percent. The 5 percent on $9,000 would only be $450, instead of that figure, it is $1,965.

6. WEED PROGRAM

We definitely urge and recommend reinstatement of noxious weed practice in ACP program, which is more adaptable than in 1955 program, for the 1956 program year. We also recommend that the weed program be administered by ASC, instead of the county weed board.

7. LIVESTOCK PRICES

We definitely urge that Congress take action and put on a floor of $18 for No. 1 hogs, and for cattle a floor of $25.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. THUE. We will next hear from Clark County, Mr. Hurlbert. STATEMENT OF ROY O. HURLBERT, RAYMOND, S. DAK.

Mr. HURLBERT. Senator Ellender and members of the committee, I am Roy Hurlbert, Clark County. We have a program, I and my neighbors and interested farmers, that we have developed.

It is rather semicomplete, but it follows repetition somewhat of different things that have been advocated here today.

I have filed the brief with the lady at the door. I do not believe in fairness to those who come on that I will take any more time. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

STATEMENT FILED BY ROY O. HURLBERT, RAYMOND, S. DAK.

PREFACE

I, Roy O. Hurlbert, was born in 1896 on a farm which I now own and operate north of Raymond, in Clark County, S. Dak. I lived on this farm continuously from birth until a year ago when I formed a partnership with my son and I took up my residence in Raymond. I am a graduate of South Dakota State College, veteran of World War I, served on the local board of education for 25 years, was township treasurer for 19 years, helped to develop the original farm program in 1933, and served as county chairman of the old AAA for 11 years. I am at present State senator representing Clark and Spink Counties.

I realize that a national plan to be workable and fair to all the American people must apply to all sections of the United States and must be partially self-supporting for the grain farmer.

My plan is briefly this: Figure out for each farm in the Nation (this can be done from the records of the present program) the average acres devoted to grain crops for the last 3 years; from our Government statisticians, determine the percent of overproduction for these same 3 years. Now give each farmer an allotment for grain crops equal to his total average grain crops less the percentage of determined overproduction less 5 percent (this 5 percent will help take up the accumulated surplus together with the fact that the cropped acres will be the better cropland and perhaps heavier fertilized).

The two crops of corn and wheat shall have their own special allotment which comes out of the total farm grain acreage allotments. These 2 allotments shall be determined as in the past, again taking into consideration the fact that having a limited allotment, the better land plus extra fertilizer will be used on these 2 crops.

It will be compulsory for the farm to stay within their corn and wheat allotments or be subject to extremely heavy penalties as in the past or as determined. All other parts of the program shall be voluntary, subject to the penalty of inability to obtain price supports if the total allotments are not adhered to.

Anyone staying within their allotments shall be eligible for loan or purchase by the Government at 100 percent of parity. This applies to all grains.

Anyone not staying within their allotments shall be subject to the penalties as are determined for corn and wheat and will have to sell these other grains or feed them and it is not the responsibility of the Government if they lose money or are bankrupt.

This percentage acres, the difference between the average cropland acres and the total grain acres, cannot be used to harvest any small-grain crop, but may be used for pasture, hay, trees, fallow, or any other nongrain crops as long as it conforms to good soil conservation measures as it is to be remembered that it is only a matter of time before we will need all possible production because of the fast rate of increase in population. There shall be no payment for these percentage acres as such, but should it be deemed that for conservation reasons there should be special work done on these acres it shall be the duty of the Soil Conservation Service to handle reimbursement of this from moneys appropriated by Congress.

If this plan for small grain is adopted, I do not believe that it will be necessary, after things get squared away, to have any other support program for livestock or their products, but in the meantime authorize and demand that the Secretary of Agriculture purchase (but not store) perishable commodities, but not wait (as he has done in the present hog emergency) until the producers are bankrupt.

My plan would be to take peanuts out of the list of basic commodities, to leave the present plan intact for tobacco, and to devote more research on the cotton program until something better shows up.

In regard to the present surplus of farm products, an honest, nonpolitical effort should be made to sell this abroad and after this program I have submitted is in operation, our surplus wheat and feed grains should be put on the local

64440-56-pt. 3—9

markets in competition with the noncooperators' grain even though this would mean $1 wheat or $0.75 corn.

To protect and encourage the family-size farm the total amount of grain on which the Government shall be obligated to support advance loans to any one person or corporation shall be limited to $20,000.

Mr. THUE. We will now hear from Donald Jerrett, of Britton, S. Dak.

STATEMENT OF DONALD JERRETT, BRITTON, S. DAK.

Mr. JERRETT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I think practically everything I have to offer today has been covered.

There is one thing I would like to bring out at this time.

All of last year I was in the Army and stationed in Korea. I did not realize until after I had gotten over there just how bad off some people in the world are, because there are a lot of people practically starving to death over there.

At the time I was there-it also came out in the papers-I think we gave a grant of $800 million or something like that to Korea to help them out in the AFAK or something of that order. Seeing all of these people starving to death, and with this surplus of wheat, I was just wondering why there could not be more done to give them more wheat by selling it to them or something.

I think it was in October and November of last year they had quite a little squabble over there about the money situation-that is, the Korean's money, which seemed to have become inflated. And the way we got our money to pay our Korean laborers was to offer the American dollar on the market there and sell it to the Korean Government and get their won to pay these houseboys and laborers that we were using to take the place of our boys over there so that we would not have to use so many boys.

They could not seem to come to an agreement.

I see now where they passed, I believe, some legislation, or the Department of Agriculture has taken some action and is beginning to sell some of the wheat for their dollar, so that we can use their dollars in their country for whatever is necessary.

That is fine. I am glad to hear it.

There are many people hungry in the Orient and in many other places in the world."

It is like anything else. After you get a horse started, he sort of loiters along the way, nibbling at grass. I think it would be fine if you would kind of prod them along a little bit and get more of that done.

If we can establish more of a world market I think that we can get rid of a lot of this extra grain and at the same time help our situation here. I just do not know how to do that. There have been many suggestions here today.

There has been this world deal where we have a two-price plan, more or less, in effect. It is pretty early to tell yet how that will work. Maybe that would help.

I have heard several complaints from fellows up there that have read up on it that our products are too high for the world market, that they were competing with Canadian grain coming down here. They can raise it so much cheaper than we can.

Maybe if we put a little bit of a two-price plan into effect, we could get the grain out on the world market and get rid of some of this, until the time in 1975 or somewhere in there, when we are supposed to have a population increased enough to more or less take care of our food supply.

That is all I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. THUE. We will next hear from Bennett County.

STATEMENT OF CECIL L. McCUE, MARTIN, S. DAK.

Mr. McCUE. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am representing three counties here-Barrett, Shannon, and Washabaugh.

On September 15, 1955, a group of farmers from these counties met for the purpose of discussing farm problems, and to present our views before the Senate agriculture hearing to be held at Brookings, S. Dak., October 27, 1955. After considerable discussion we feel that under the large surpluses of commodities present allotment program is the best way to reduce these reserves with the following provisions:

1. That all commodities be supported at 90 percent of parity on the basis of the old parity formula.

2. That because of the fact that there is no great surplus of high quality Red wheat and other wheat used for processing of foods consideration be given to a substantial differential in price supports between high-quality, desirable milling wheat and that of feed wheat and other inferior grades. Therefore, we feel that the present premiums which are being paid, amounting to 9 cents per bushel on winter wheat, up to 17.4 percent protein, and 12 percent per bushel on spring wheat be raised to a comparable basis with what is being paid by the millers for such high protein wheat with desirable milling qualities, which is in short supply.

3. Due to the fact that planting in excess of allotments is contributing greatly to the wheat surplus, we recommend a more severe penalty be imposed on those who do not comply with their allotments, the penalty to be imposed on the following basis: The actual yield per acre for the farm times acreage in excess of his allotment.

4. That farmers be paid a greater incentive payment for soilbuilding practices, thereby eliminating such land from production which would otherwise be used for producing crops of which there is a surplus.

Senator MUNDT. I have one question; you come from Bennett County. I had several letters before the hearing from farmers out around Martin, who raised the special problem as to the summer fallowing farmer.

Do you have anything to say about that?

Mr. McCUE. I would say this much on the summer fallowing farmer: Out there at the time the allotments were set up here in 1951 and 1952-prior to that-there was a lot of wheat that was raised on the continuous cropping basis, and in the last 10 years they went to the summer fallow basis.

When this new program came into effect, the boys had already cut down considerably on their acreage, and they had to take a double deal, because they took the 2 years, of which they had summer-fal