5. The 1955 ASC program entered into a 3-year agreement with a farmer to control noxious weeds. The farmer was held responsible and if he did not have the weeds controlled at the end of the 3-year period he is liable for the amount of money the Government spent on the cost-sharing program. We do not think that the Government should break this contract at the end of the first year. CALVIN OCHSNER. Mr. KARL MUNDT, Madison, S. Dak. CENTERVILLE, S. DAK., November 1, 1955. DEAR SIR: I am William L. Paulson, of Centerville. I would like to present to you my suggestion for solving the farm-surplus problem-now for the solution: 1. As we know we have a 12-year supply of wheat on hand now, if we never raised another crop. 2. We have much too much corn, oats, rye, etc., which makes an oversupply which we cannot eat, or make use of it in food form. 3. We cannot give it away to foreign countries without injury to farmers in those countries and depressing their prices. So that angle is out also. 4. There is not export demand enough in the world markets to consume these large surpluses of grain held in these United States. So exporting is out also, as a solution to the farm surplus. So here is my solution to it all, and it will work if we get it rolling and get the job done. I do not smoke or use liquor in any form. I want to say that first before I go further. Let's build up a group of distilling plants throughout the farm country, where we can use some of our surplus to make alcohol. Now this alcohol will be used as a blend, as a tractor fuel in gasoline. Not all alcohol, but a certain percentage (say 30 percent alcohol, 70 percent gasoline) to be used as a farm tractor fuel. Chemistry will provide much of the science that will be needed to perfect a way to use this alcohol in tractors. Farmers can in this way raise some of the power (fuel) that it takes to power the farm machines, as this is a machine age. Farmers, I'm sure, all over the Nation, would be favorable to this plan and would buy this alcohol, as fuel to help solve the farm surplus problem, as time moves on. Perhaps in time chemistry will find a way to use this (farm grain) alcohol in automobile gasoline also. It may even be an improvement over gasoline alone, this alcohol-gasoline blend. It is my prayer that this is a workable solution to our farm surpluses. Let's talk this solution to all farm groups throughout the farm country, and get their reaction to this idea. I'm writing this to you as friend to friend, and I would like a letter back from you one day, stating your opinion and what you think. Farming is my business. I live 2 miles south, 1 mile east, then 2 miles south again, of Centerville, S. Dak. Please let me hear from you. Sincerely, WILLIAM L. PAULSON. STATEMENT FILED BY CHARLES E. PEARSON, GETTYSBURG, S. DAK. I would like to present my views on this farm question. Being a farmer and stockman I think I am qualified to speak. I know that a lot of these suggestions that you receive the person submitting them will be told how and what to suggest. I will state here and now no one is telling me what to write. This is my own way of thinking. I believe that the soil fertility bank or leasing of surplus acres and putting these same acres in to legumes or grasses for a period of 3 years and then rotating to other acres, with a quota for each farm or farms with a lease price high enough per acre to assure participation by the farmers. Price per acre to be determined on at least a 5-year average production of grain per acre in different areas of the Nation or around one-half the price of the average production of wheat for the 5-year average. I believe this plan would do more to ease the overproduction cost than any way tried before. I think the importation of grains should be curtailed according to surpluses in the United States. It wouldn't be fair to stop all grain. When we have a surplus all that comes in should be paid the same price as they receive in their country at the time it enters this country. If their grain price was higher than ours we pay them our price for their grain. This same thing would apply to all commodities that we sell or import. I think this would help the surplus. I think the public should be informed just what the farmers and stockman are getting for the products that they sell; what labor gets for its share, also handlers and dealers just to show where most of your dollar is going. Don't forget taxes. Also inform what Government is paying all other business in subsidies or contracts and show that the help the farmers are getting is only a drop in the bucket. If a better understanding of this was public knowledge it would create better cooperation between the people in the different occupations. The farmer has the highest equipment cost per person of any other occupation. Farming is the only occupation that does not set the selling price of the products he sells. A wheat plan to help the small farmer, also the large farmer somewhat, also to take the Government out of the grain storage business is to wit: Set a price at $2.25 per bushel for No. 1 Hard Northern milling wheat at local elevators the price the farmer gets. If unable to sell to local elevators at harvesttime store on farm and get a Government loan at 90 percent of $2.25 per bushel or $2.02. Loan to run until April 30 following year, any time before maturity date farmer to sell wheat and pay off loan with interest. The small farmer with 50 acres or less could sell all wheat. Over 50 acres up to 100 acres a certain percentage and each additional 100 acres or fraction of 100 acres a still lower percentage each 100 acres. Each farm could sell or get loan on just his percentage of wheat any one year, rest to be stored on farm. I think this would stop the surplus too. CHARLES E. PEARSON. STATEMENT FILED BY GALE PEPPERS, SECRETARY, BEADLE COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT SUPERSVIORS, HURON, S. DAK. The following was taken from the minutes of the regular meeting of the Beadle Conservation District supervisors' meeting held on October 12, 1955: After some discussion, a motion was made by Merritt Fenner and seconded by A. J. Ingle that the Beadle Conservation District supervisors request the inclusion of the following cost-sharing practices in the South Dakota ASC docket in 1956: Land leveling for irrigation Stubble mulch Noxious weed control Motion carried. STATEMENT FILED BY JOHN E. POWELL, DUPREE, S. DAK. AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM BRIEF, ZIEBACH COUNTY Meeting held at Dupree, S. Dak., October 25, 1955. Attended by members of various farm agencies and farm operators from various parts of the county, for the purpose of preparing a brief to be presented to the Agricultural Committee at Brookings. An explanation of the meeting was given by the county agent and Mr. Joe Heimer. From the opinions expressed, it was concluded that the agricultural program be revamped to give more consideration to the family-type operator. It was felt that the present program was inadequate in this respect. Much of the appropriations charged to the agricultural program in no way reflect an increase in the net income of the farm operator. Operations of this kind should be charged to other departments rather than the Department of Agriculture when figuring the cost of the agricultural program. The large increase in the number of cattle is a result of the operators' efforts to increase their net income. The family-type beef producer is in a price squeeze : Low price for his product and high costs of operations. Conclusion arrived at is that price support is needed in the beef industry. With regard to the wheat situation, it was summarized that a high penalty be imposed. It is felt that this is necessary to keep the wheat producer within his allotment. The penalty would have to be high, thereby taking the profit away from excess acreage wheat. The conclusion of the group is that the price paid to the original producer must be raised. His purchasing power should be in balance with the price of the commodities that he must purchase. Price support will have to be high enough so that the result would be reflected in the net income of the original producer. The answer must be found by providing American farmers full economic equity with other groups within the framework of a dynamic expanding economy, based upon full employment and full production. STATEMENT FILED BY F. GORDON RAY, HIGH MORE, S. DAK. I am a farmer and rancher living southwest of Highmore in Hyde County, S. Dak., operating a 1,120-acre combination stock and grain farm. This is about an averaged-sized, family-type farm in Hyde County. I was elected to appear at this hearing by the ASC community committeemen, who represent each township in the county. The intent, and ultimate aim, of any farm legislation should be to protect the income of the family-type farm, and to guarantee him a fair share of the national income. As things now stand, the farmer is the forgotten man in relation to legislation already passed guaranteeing other segments of our economy a living wage, no matter what economic conditions exist. We do not believe it is too much to ask for a fair return for the products of our labor, especially since these products are the most important things the consuming public needs and are able to buy. Under the present farm program farmers are hard pressed indeed to break even, let alone find any return on their investment. Under laws now in force. utility companies are allowed returns which will meet expenses, including salaries, plus 6 percent on their investment. Why aren't farmers entitled to that kind of a deal? We think we are. Since it is apparent that the farm prices are made in Washington, the present flexible support price law should be repealed and legislation passed fixing the farm price supports at 90 percent of parity at least, and at once, to prevent the present farm program from going into effect at its disaster level in 1956. Loans. purchase agreements, or production payments could be used, or any other suitable methods which would alleviate the position of the small farmer, due to the cost-price squeeze. We need protection immediately from even higher costs and lower returns during the coming year. But there should also be a long-range program worked out that will truly aid the family-type farmer. Immediate protection would be the aforementioned 90 percent of parity rigid price supports, lower interest rates on CCC and FHA loans, and no further acreage cuts in 1956. A long-range program should include more grain and other farm products sold to other countries, not given away just to make friends for the United States and charging the cost to the farm program. Some tariffs should be reduced so other countries can trade more manufactured goods for our farm commodities. A soil-fertility bank would help arrive at a better balance between production and consumption, but the compensation for taking land out of production should be high enough to offset the loss of income due to the reduced acreage under cultivation. Some way should be found to lessen the depressing effect on the market created by the surplus farm commodities. It stands to reason our Nation should have food supplies for a couple of years, just as a farmer stores food in case of a short crop or two. However, the farmer should not have to take a low price for his products for the Nation's privilege of having a stockpile of foodstuffs. Possibly a program patterned after the sugar or wool programs should be tried on some other farm commodities. Perhaps a food stamp plan that would assist low-income families provide themselves with sufficient food and clothing would help in using up our abundant production. An expanded school-lunch program would help along the same line. Any farm legislation enacted should carry provisions making it mandatory for the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the intent of the law. Under the present law farm prices could have been bolstered if the Secretary had exercised that authority given him. Any farm program adopted should be administered by community elected farmers. The long-range program must be started quickly, or our headlong slide toward economic disaster will become a reality in the not too distant future. If the Nation's farmers cannot buy the manufactured goods, and we can't when we are broke, it won't be long before everything comes down with a crash. STATEMENT FILED BY F. M. ROBERTS, WEBSTER, S. DAK. This brief is submitted on behalf of a Day County group keenly interested in the welfare of agriculture. We believe price supports should be at least 90 percent of parity. Living standards for farmers should be on the same level as that guaranteed labor and industry. There is far more protest against lower price supports than against allotments. We recall the double calamity of the early thirties when a depression and crop failure adversely affected the entire Nation. Surplus: We doubt that an adequate cash rent paid the farmer for retiring land, usually seeded to corn and small grain, would cost more than the storing and preserving of above-normal supplies of the basic crops. The cost of a normal carryover should not be charged to the producer, the entire Nation benefits. We recommend that cash rental be paid for diverted acres. In return the farmer should be asked to do the minimum amount of work necessary to prevent the area from becoming a hazard. We favor a continuance of ACP. No matter if national farm organizations do not entirely agree, a longer range program should be devised. At present it is too much of a hand-to-mouth existence. Practices are approved and perhaps done before funds are definitely available. We suggest, that, in its formation, consideration be given the following: (1) The family-sized farm. It would seem that the enlarging of farm units forces too large a proportion of the younger generation to seek employment elsewhere and that this will eventually peril our economic balance. (2) Those of us in the spring wheat and durum areas feel that these varieties are entitled to preference over the soft wheats. (3) The possibility of eliminating acreage allotments and substituting marketing quotas on all crops. The quotas to be based on national requirements including exports and supported at 100 percent of parity. (4) That to the individual producer or farm corporation, CCC loans be limited to $10,000 on any one commodity and to a total of $25,000 on all commodities. (5) We favor continuation of Federal crop insurance with an actuary which will place major emphasis on a long-time history and lesser attention to temporary setbacks. STATEMENT FILED BY CHARLES H. ROSE, STURGIS, S. DAK, I own and operate a ranch in Meade County, S. Dak. I am presenting this testimony as an individual rancher. I do not regard high rigid support prices as the answer to our very serious decline in net farm income. High rigid supports would lead to strict Federal controls and acreage allotments on everything produced on American farms. These controls, while being regarded as good practices in countries behind the Iron Curtain are a form of regimentation, to which the American farmer should never be subjected. The American farmer is a rugged individualist at heart, and with a little help will be able to take care of his production problems, and still maintain a standard of living to which we, as Americans, are accustomed. This help to the farmer to which I refer should come in the form of flexible support prices, and an increased world market. Flexible supports can be adjusted up or down as the need arises. This will take care of surpluses and underproduction of certain items to a great extent. Also, our foreign market for American farm products can be greatly expanded. I believe in selling farm products to countries behind the Iron Curtain. These countries need these products, and in furnishing them we would be going farther to develop good will with these countries than has ever been done in the diplomatic field. Also, any ship engaged in world trade, irrespective of nationality, should be able to include American farm produce in its cargo. I am presenting this testimony in as short a form as possible hoping that I have made myself clear as to my stand on high rigid support prices. STATEMENT FILED BY ED RUDD, COLMAN, S, DAK. Meeting of Moody County farm organizations held October 3, 1955, Ed Rudd elected chairman and Donald Dailey, secretary. Moody County is a cash grain and livestock area in eastern South Dakota. There are approximately 1,100 farms and 1,325 farmers. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the present farm situation and program to consolidate ideas for a brief to be presented to the Senate agriculture hearings at Brookings October 27, 1955. Those present: James Ellingson, Flandreau, Moody County ASC Alfred J. Rave, Trent, Moody County Weed Board Geo. A. Schultz, Flandreau, Farm Union Marvin Gullickson, Flandreau, Farm Union Fred Procknow, Madison, Farmers Home Administration Ed Rudd, Colman, Moody County ASC C. M. Culhane, Flandreau, Moody County extension agent American agriculture today is at an economic disadvantage with the rest of the national economy. Net farm income has declined each year for the past 8 years with the single exception of 1951 when Korea was an important factor. A big reason for the decline in net farm income is rising farm expenses. These operating costs have increased 30 percent in the past 8 years and are still increasing. Farm prices too are being depressed. We are being hurt by the rising costs and falling prices. We are faced with the problem of trying to sell more of our products and of cutting production to a realistic appraisal of market demand. There is a law that Congress did not pass and Congress cannot repeal-that is the law of supply and demand. In Moody County we are agreed that there must be production controls. We dislike controls but we dislike going broke even worse. The adequate production of foodstuff is a blessing but the accumulation of surpluses is a waste. It is a waste of the farmers labor and capital-a waste of our soil resources and an expense and headache to the Government. To have an effective production control program we unanimously agreed that: 1. All farms must be in a production control program. 2. Acres must be taken entirely out of production and kept in black-not producing even hay or grass. 3. Cross compliance is a must. A farmer must stay within allotted acres on all crops to qualify for price supports and ACP payments. 4. We favor the present farmer committeeman system of operating a farm program. 5. We favor storing of more grain on the farms and less in Government bins. 6. We recommend that stored commodities may be sold locally at the price-supoprt figure. It was further agreed that farmers must have the protection of 100 percent parity. Since we have no protection by the Government from the monopolistic pricing tactics of labor and big business and since we must average 100 percent parity in order to continue farming we feel justified in making this request. It is also felt that we are not getting the fullest possible export market for our surplus products. Unnecessary trade restrictions, redtape and State Department interference should be replaced with a vigorous program of searching for more world markets. |