ators who happened to overseed 3, 5, or 10 acres unintentionally, destroyed the overseeded portion of their crop, in order to comply with the program. The larger operators who overseeded 30, 50, a hundred or more acres got by this year by posting a bond and not having to pay the penalty on the overproduction. They were able to sell their grain on the open market this fall for more than the support.

The same thing happens to the small operator when he would like to increase the size of his unit from 3 to 4 quarters, which is about a minimum of size in our area, that one has a chance to survive on. (And there are a lot of 4-quarter units that have less than 100 acres of wheat allotment.) When another quarter of land that would improve his unit comes up for sale, the small farmer is often outbid by some larger operator who has the money, and the little fellow is squeezed out for lack of (1) capital to finance the additional quarter purchase, or (2) some lending agency who will advance enough credit for him to make the purchase. Then, there are the units of size and type that would and have made good family units that are up for sale.

It is very seldom, when they are disposed of, that they continue to be family units. They are divided up and sold in 1, 2, or more parcels to other operators, continuing the same trend-the large operator getting larger and the family unit disappearing.

This trend is bad for the local communities, towns, churches, schools, our REA and RTA programs; as well as, soil conservation and land management. The local businessman cannot stay in business in the trading center long if he intends to make a living selling to a few large farm operators.

As to our REA and RTA programs, RTA is only getting a start, but the REA is working and is a proven success, not only from a convenient, practical standpoint of giving the rural resident the same electrical privileges as the urban resident, but they are working from a financial angle as well. Moneys borrowed by the REA co-ops are being paid back to the United States Government on time and with interest. This is possible by having the family-type farmer of about one place of service for each mile of line. If we should go to larger-type farm units, the rates for electric energy would have to be raised so much higher that it would be doubtful if REA co-ops would survive.

The churches and schools, too, disappear when family-type agriculture must move out.

As for soil conservation and land management-the family-type farmer is the one who is most concerned when a field starts to blow, a ravine begins to erode, or a small dam needs to be built for watering his stock or improving the surroundings for wildlife. The family operator is the one who will get these things done, for he is interested in the land and farm being there for his children and grandchildren.

Now, what we are interested in and hope this committee and the Congress can do, is something more for the family-type farmer. We do not want to lose our present farm program that has taken over 20 years to build, but it could be improved.

We want and need a price support program, and it should be at 100 percent of parity for the farmer to be on an equal with other industries. But the amount of price support should be limited to $20,000 of gross production from any one farm or individual. This price support should be paid on any production from the farm whether it be meat, wool, grain, or perishables, and the support to be paid as production payments direct to the producer. All production over $20,000 would have no price support. Also, there should be a larger price differential in supports for quality produce.

Continue and expand the FHA program with additional money available for long-term credit at a low interest rate to be available to family-type farmers who live on the land, and to returning war veterans who would like to farm.

Continue to expand the soil-conservation program-one of the most important programs we have and one that we should be most concerned about. We, who are here today, cannot say we own this land. We are only custodians of it. It is to be used by us while we are here; but also, to be protected and conserved by us.

Provide sufficient funds for our REA and RTA programs with a low rate of interest so that generation and transmission lines can be built when necessary to adequately serve electric energy to rural people, where the consumer demand for electric power is growing daily.

This committee is holding hearings here today on a price-support program. I have added a few additional items that do not directly pertain to price support,

but are so important to farmers that we would not want to lose them, but have them improved to be of greater service to us. Thank you.

STATEMENT FILED BY JENS RECTOR, MILTON, N. DAK.

I am Jens Rector of Milton, N. Dak., in Cavalier County. I have been asked by my friends to explain to you the barley situation as we see it.

We farmers of Cavalier County believe the imports of feed grains should be drastically curtailed, for these reasons:

(1) Barley as it now stands, is priced at 66 percent of parity. While this is possibly an advantage to the producer of poultry, beef feeders and hogs (and I am a raiser of hogs and cattle), we have on the market today so much meat that there is not room enough to take care of it. And the depressed prices are the results.

Oats are affected the same as barley and stands even lower on the parity scale at 65 percent. Therefore we believe that the imports of these products should be drastically reduced if not stopped entirely.

Just to show how the barley import picture looks to us farmers, in my marketing town of Osnabrock, N. Dak., in the spring of 1954, there was stored in Government bins 173,000 bushels of barley. At the end of that same marketing year the imports from Canada, amounted to 34 million bushels. In other words, it would take 200 towns with the storage capacity of Osnabrock to take care of the barley that was previously imported from Canada alone.

We do object to this depressing effect on our second largest crop.

OBJECTION TO BUSHEL ALLOTMENTS

One other item I wish to bring before you is our objection to the proposed bushel quota on grains. This quota control, allowing farmers to market a portion of their crop at a set price, has these serious disadvantages: The Government sets the price; the Government sets the number of bushels to be sold. Therefore the farmer is limited to a certain maximum income set by the Government, and all individual initiative is destroyed. Thank you.

RESOLUTIONS OF THE NORTH DAKOTA FARM BUREAU FILED BY G. CLARK ROBINSON, COLEHARBOR, N. DAK.

AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS

Soil-conservation-bank plan

The purpose of a soil-conservation-bank plan is to reduce the productivity of the present United States food- and fiber-producing plant, now running above effective demand and burdened with unmanageable surpluses.

We hope the American people will accept this plan of storing agricultural surpluses in the soil through increased fertility, available for emergency use and not subject to deterioration of any sort.

The advantages of the soil-conservation-bank plan are many :

(a) It is entirely voluntary.

(b) It can be administered by existing agencies.

(c) Acreage under the program can be returned to crop production after 5 years. This important phase of the program will prevent sudden shrinking of demand for goods and services by farmers. Such shrinking might spark another depression.

(d) It is a stepped-up conservation measure for soil, water, and wildlife, tending to retire poorer land first.

(e) It is our belief that this kind of a farm program will let the land be put to its best use in the interest of future national security and maximum freedom of choice for the farmer.

We recommend:

That USDA determine the per acre payment which it estimates would retire on a voluntary basis the necessary acreage of cultivated land from crop production, to bring United States production in line with effective demand.

A county committee would determine the individual payments on a per farm basis. This would be approximately equal to the average net profit per acre, less operator's labor, or about the landlord's share.

This annual payment to the owner would cover the taxes, plus interest on investment, and might be adjusted to help the marginal producer.

The payment would be made at the close of the growing season, after the local committee was satisfied that the regulations had been complied with.

The first year payment would include, to the operator, the cost of establishing grass or legumes or mixtures thereof, plus the cost of controlling weeds or pests. Approved varieties would be designated by existing agencies.

Contracts between the cooperator and USDA would be for 5 years with the stipulation that resulting grass crops be used only for seed production. After the first 5 years the payment for establishing the designated grass crop would be made only on acres in excess of previous plantings.

While contracts would be let for 5 years, provision should be made for authority to keep land subject to severe erosion in the program indefinitely.

Any support program would be incorporated into the framework of the soilconservation-bank plan, with cross compliance, if necessary.

No new land would be brought into production by any cooperator receiving price support or any payment under this program.

At the start of each crop year, the Secretary of Agriculture would announce the maximum per acre annual payment, adjusted to obtain the desired number of acres placed in the conservation bank.

STATEMENT FILED BY DENVER ROSBERG, MCLEAN COUNTY FARMERS' UNION,

WASHBURN, N. DAK.

I am Denver Rosberg, from Washburn, N. Dak., and am representing the McLean County Farmers' Union.

There are about 2,000 diversified farms in our county. It is from these that the major portion of the income is derived with the exception of the present expenditure at the Garrison Dam.

Nearly all business establishments in our county are directly dependent on income from agriculture for survival. As a result of the rust losses and lowering farm income nearly all business is on a straight cash basis. The need for cash has intensified the need for an expanded and more liberal FHA policy. The farm supply cooperatives are saving the farmers from 10 to 12 percent on the purchase of fuel and oil and other farm supplies, but they must run on a cash basis. Many small farmers are in a squeeze for available cash and are forced to go to independent firms that will give them credit until fall but not at this 10 to 12 percent saving. The FHA program should be liberalized to grant loans to these farmers and reduce their cost of operation to a great extent. In the purchase of farm equipment FHA should have a more liberal policy to aid the small farmer so that they would not have to pay the 10 to 12 percent interest to commercial credit corporations. Many farms could be more efficient if capital were available to expand their operations.

A price support on storable commodities of at least 90 percent of parity through a loan program or purchase agreement with acreage controls if necessary and compensatory payments on perishables is necessary to revive the farmer's economic position. Modifications of the parity formula may be necessary to reflect the changes in our food choices and a maximum amount should be set for price supports that any one individual could obtain on a point system 10,000 points with a bushel of wheat being 1 point, points on other commodities would be adjusted to the average margin of profit compared to wheat.

The cost of supporting prices could be greatly reduced if we would spend more time studying expanded consumption and less time in reducing production. The school-lunch program is an example of expanding consumption. Even with our increased production of dairy products, if everyone in America had the basic milk requirement, we would have no surplus.

Hundreds of thousands of people have never slept on a cotton mattress but would welcome that opportunity. There are unlimited ideas open in the field of expanded consumption to use our surpluses if we had the resourcefulness and humanitarianism that is needed. There have been suggestions of advertising but this is like setting a juicy sizzling prime steak in front of a man who has his hands tied. There must be a plan to move the surplus into the hands of those who cannot afford to buy it but who would be better citizens if they had it. I would prefer to see the economic position of all people such that they could purchase all of our farm commodities through normal channels, but as that is not possible other means should be developed to bring our surpluses into the hands of the people who can use them.

Farm prices should be supported to at least 90 percent of parity. The millions of agricultural producers are helpless in the supply and demand market. The petroleum industry, auto and machinery manufacturers, and nearly every other producer is large enough so that they set the price and if that is not met they do not cut prices but cut production. Not only do they maintain price by cutting production but they also ask for a tariff to protect them from competition. Doctors, lawyers, and union workers all have an established price and have an effective enough organization to hold the prices for their services. The farmer is the only American producer that must be sacrificed at the altar of wholly free enterprise. Where in America do products sell on an absolutely free market? Because of the fact that there are so many farmers who cannot hope to be in a semimonopoly position as are other producers, we have only the alternative to go to the Government. Private power rates, telephone rates, and freight rates have been determined by Government agencies for years. Does it seem inconsistent that farm prices should be determined by Government?

STATEMENT FILED BY OLIVER ROSENBERG, NEW ROCKFORD, N. DAK.

A meeting of farmers was held in the Eddy County, N. Dak., courthouse, Wednesday evening, October 26, 1955. It was called by the Eddy County Farmers' Union. There were 57 farmers present from every part of the county and a few from Benson County. The following statements and resolutions were approved:

We believe prices are made in Washington, D. C. Therefore, Benson must go so President Eisenhower can fulfill his promise to American agriculture which he made at Kasson, Minn.

We believe the family-type farm is the backbone of the Nation and must be saved if democracy shall live. If the family-type farm is to survive, drastic action must be taken now.

The records show that the top 1.9 percent of the farms got 25 percent of the total price-support benefits, and the top 9 percent of the farms got over half of the money paid out. These are statistics based upon figures appearing in the Congressional Record, May 5, 1955.

It was with these facts and thinking in minds of our group that they passed the following resolution verbatim:

Resolved, That we believe the farmers are entitled to 100 percent of parity for all products and that a limit be placed on the amount of benefits any single farmer, company, or corporation can receive in any single year, and that such a limit should be about $10,000.

This resolution, if carried out and made into law, would make it possible for the smaller family-type farmers to receive a much larger percentage of the total price-support benefits, while the larger farmers would receive a much smaller percentage of the total support benefits. It was generally believed that this plan would also reduce surpluses.

STATEMENT FILED BY STANLEY SAUGSTAD, MINOT, N. DAK.

My name is Stanley Saugstad, and I have lived all my life on a farm in Sundre Township, Ward County.

I believe that Congress should reenact a measure similar to Public Law No. 8, approved by the 84th Congress on January 19, 1955. This measure permitted unrestricted durum acreage in certain counties in the States of Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Such a measure if passed should be restricted to the crop year of 1956. The reasons for asking for a continuation of unrestricted durum acreage for 1956 are the same as they were 1 year ago. In view of the fact that there was unrestricted acreage in 1955 with an estimated average yield somewhat in excess of the long-time average, total production is estimated at approximately 14,379,000 bushels. From figures taken from form WS145 released by the United States Department of Agriculture, August 19, 1955, the average durum acreage per year for the period 1948-52 inclusive was nearly 3 million acres with an annual production of nearly 36 million bushels. During this same period, the average annual carryover was 18 million bushels and the average domestic disappearance was nearly 31 million, and what is most significant is that the carryover in 1952 was estimated to be 7 million bushels. These figures tend to indicate that there is no need to curtail or restrict durum acreage

until annual production is substantially in excess of 30 million bushels. In 1955 the seeded acreage of durum dropped about 500 acres despite unrestricted acreage. The estimated total acreage being 1,140,000 acres compared to an average of 3 million acres for the 1948-52 period.

There is little to indicate that farmers of this immediate area will drastically increase their durum acreage in 1956 if there are no acreage restrictions. Good seed will no doubt cost considerably more than comparable hard wheat, and the varieties presently available are so susceptible to stem rust that most farmers are unwilling to risk seeding a major portion of their cropland to durum. It is conceded that rust resistant varieties of amber durum seed will not generally be available before 1957 or possibly 1958.

In this county (Ward), approximately 12,000 acres were seeded to amber durum in 1955. This is about 5 percent of the total acreage seeded to wheat in this county. From the meager information available, this appears to be representative of the long-time durum acreage for this area. However, now that hard spring wheat varieties resistant to 15B stem rust are available, there will be some reluctance to gamble with durum, especially if it means a curtailment of the individual's spring wheat acreage. I know that I would hesitate to seed any durum if I must reduce my spring wheat allotment. In 1955, the monetary return per acre for durum or spring wheat on my farm was approximately the same. Had the stem rust on the durum started or built up a week earlier than it did, the return from the durum would have been considerably less than for the hard wheat.

Thus, I believe that it will be necessary to allow for 1 more year unrestricted durum acreage as an incentive to increase the production of this class of wheat to meet our normal domestic consumption. As soon as overproduction threatens, acreage restrictions will be necessary and advantageous.

Hard spring wheat is by far our principal cash crop. Ward County is probably a representative area of the spring wheat belt. According to the figures of the local ASC office, there are 864,600 acres of cropland in Ward County. In 1951 and 1952, approximately 379,000 acres were seeded to spring wheat each year. In 1953, the acreage seeded to spring wheat exceeded this figure somewhat so that the historical average or base was estimated to be 390,000 acres. During this period when there were no acreage restrictions, approximately 44 percent of the tillable land was seeded to wheat. In 1954, Ward County had a wheat allotment of 279,000 acres and in 1955, it was 250,653 acres. Since most farmers tend to underseed their allotment to avoid penalties or to avoid the nuisance of plowing down overseeded acres, the total wheat acreage for Ward County for 1955 was 236,569 acres which represents slightly over 27 percent of the tillable cropland. This represents an acreage cut of about 38 percent. Since there are 2,480 farms in Ward County, it follows that the average farm has at present an allotment of about 100 acres of wheat.

Now, the spring-wheat farmer feels that he has been discriminated against in the present farm program in that he has cut his acreage by 36% percent, using the years 1951 to 1953 as a base and comparing that with his 1955 acreage. Using the same base, the winter wheat farmer has cut his acreage slightly less than 23 percent. This, however, is only one facet of the problem. The reason for acreage restrictions arose from burdensome surpluses of wheat. Now, using the period 1948-52, inclusive, the average annual production of spring wheat was 208 million bushels and during the same period, average annual disappearance was 160 million bushels. Thus, almost 80 percent of the production of spring wheat was consumed or disappeared during the period 1948-52, and 20 percent was accumulating as a surplus. During this same period, all wheat other than spring wheat was being produced at the rate of 931 million bushels per year whereas the average annual rate of disappearance was 524 million bushels per year, or reduced to percentages, 56 percent of this wheat was being consumed and 44 percent was accumulating as a surplus. Thus, all wheat other than spring wheat was accumulating at the rate of more than double that of spring wheat. Now, we find that the spring-wheat grower has cut his acreage by 36 percent while the winter-wheat grower has cut his acreage by 23 percent.

By using a different approach, it can be shown that the winter-wheat grower is more responsible for the present wheat glut than the spring-wheat grower. Using 1920-29 inclusive as a base period, the average winter-wheat acreage was 44,076,000 acres compared to their 1951-53 average acreage which was 56,504,000 acres or an increase of 28 percent in acreage. The average seeded acreage for all spring wheat during the period 1920-29, inclusive, was 20,880,000 acres and for the 1951-52 period, it was 21,887,000 acres or an increase of less than 5 per