have for their crops, they should have full parity and we would like to see all other farm crops put on an equal basis. Some people would like to keep farmers and labor fighting among themselves and keep their minds off the main issues, a higher standard of living for all. We are not in favor of the proposed self-help plan, as proposed by some national dairies. Not that we are opposed to people helping themselves, that is fine, but we do object to people helping themselves to what we produce without giving us proper returns for our product, and this plan does exactly that. The following paragraphs from the self-help plan pamphlet I think will explain to you what I mean. Page 3 of pamphlet: "Creation of a Dairy Stabilization Board of 15 members to be appointed by the President from nominees selected by milk producers." Here is some of the powers of this Board: Levying of assessments set by the Board on all milk or butterfat sold by individual farmers in commercial channels, the amount so acquired to be used to cover loss of surplus handling to pay costs of administering the program, and for research and participation in advertising and promoting of dairy products. Page 13 of pamphlet: "The Board would be authorized to borrow up to $500 million from the Commodity Credit Corporation. It could borrow also from private credit sources and pledge its assets as security." Some power. Mortgage the assets of every individual farmer in the United States and their co-ops. On page 3 of pamphlet you might think this 15-man committee was going to be elected by individual farmers, but on page 13, the pamphlet tells you they will be appointed. "In making appointments to the Board, consideration would be given to securing an equitable representation of the various forms in which milk and its products are sold." Man. Who do we think would be on that 15-man committee? A few National Dairy, Pet Milk, Borden Co., Carnation Co., men, etc., etc. Here is where dairy farmers' profits are going: Loss per hundredweight to date $1.37. Loss in percent to date 29 percent plus. Sales price of dairy cattle off 58 percent, some 66 percent. Yet the consumer pays an alltime high per quart for milk and in percentage of cost the same for meat. The above is for grade A base price on milk that goes into bottles. (February 1955 price on 4-percent milk.) Base: $4.20 (cwt.), plus or minus_. Per unit $0.072 . 07 .07 Remember it's all milk and if the grade A shippers are not getting by on the price they are getting, what about the factory shipper who is only getting $2.80? There are only two grades of milk, good or no good. The above prices give you an example of both the sliding-scale and a three-price system. I am a grade A shipper, but I am not selfish enough to want to eliminate my smaller neighbors by unfair competition of inspections and special prices. Nor do I think it fair to protect industry or one farm product without protecting all others at the same rate of parity. Farmers will always have to produce surpluses of 20 to 40 percent to take care of national disasters that man and animals might live. Most of the farmers and labor see the economic necessity for 100 percent of parity prices for agriculture. Most farmers want also to pay a fair price for their labor, for the small farurer is going to get back that fair price for his own labor, and eliminate the unfair competition of wetback labor. The following farm organizations of this county (Grays Harbor) have endorsed 100 percent of parity for all farm products: Grays Harbor Dairy Association, Farmer's Union and the Grays Harbor Jersey Club. I am representing the Grays Harbor Jersey Club, the Grays Harbor Farmer's Union and the Agriculture Committee of the Humptulips Valley Grange. I am also working for farmers on the following committees: The ASC program, soil conservation, a board member of the Grays Harbor County Dairymen's Association, and served the last 3 years in the Grays Harbor County Cattlemen's Association. In behalf of my many friends for whom I have presented the aforesaid testimony, we solicit your full support, and of those whom you can influence in behalf of America's farm program. RESOLUTION Whereas farmers must produce 25 to 40 percent more than they anticipate will be needed, to take care of national emergencies so people and animals will have sufficient food. Whereas we are sure the 150 million city people are willing to help pay the cost of this surplus, as it should insure them an abundance of food at lower prices. Whereas the price of milk and other farm products has continued to drop since December 1952 to date. Whereas farmers in trying to maintain their income level have produced more and added to the surplus and farm financial distress. Whereas the price to the producers of milk has dropped 29 percent between 1952 and 1954, and living costs have risen 6 percent, adding to the dairy producers' distress. Whereas the price of dairy cows sold for meat has dropped from 1952 to 1954, 50 to 60 percent. Whereas the allover feed cost to the dairy farmer has not dropped in price. Whereas the Secretary of Agriculture has not stopped the continued drop in prices and has imported foods, adding to the present surplus and deplorable conditions. Whereas the farmer never has and never will have control over the food costs to the consumer to regulate supply and demand. Whereas 20 million farmers with a thousand different products cannot get together to peg prices. Whereas farm prices do determine the Nation's prosperity: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Grays Harbor Dairymen's Association in executive meeting reaffirms its membership's request that we go on record urging our National Government to place dairy and all other farm products on 100 percent of parity, and payments to go direct to farmers; therefore be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be presented to the United States Senate Interim Committee in session at Pendleton, Oreg., October 31, 1955; be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to our national Representatives and Senators of the State of Washington, also to the chairman of the national House and Senate Agriculture Committees. The above resolution was adopted at Satsop, Wash., October 13, 1955. CLAUD A. ASGOOD, President, Grays Harbor Dairymen's Association. ALICE MOCK, Secretary, Grays Harbor Dairymen's Association. The CHAIRMAN. Next is Mr. York. Is Mr. York present? (No response.) Mr. Stadelman-is Mr. Stadelman present? (No response.) Mr. Swearingen-is Mr. Swearingen present? (No response.) Mr. Scroggin. STATEMENT OF FORREST SCROGGIN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOIL-CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, UNION, OREG. Mr. SCROGGIN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will digress from my prepared statement to say that to the extent that Jack Smith reminded me of it this morning, we just cannot go on with the flexible price support, and stay in our farm economy. I have a prepared statement which is very short. We believe that an agricultural program is needed which will control surpluses before they begin, at the source of supply. This program must provide for the rehabilitation of our soil and water resources, be of benefit to the Nation in the long run and not break the Nation's farmers in the process. Such a program should include: (1) Reduction of wheat marketing quotas to the level of domestic consumption; (2) Changing wheat acreage allotments to bushel allotments; (3) 100 percent parity on the reduced wheat production; and (4) Establishment of a soil bank on diverted acres by converting to pasture and soil-building crops. I. Many thousands of acres of marginal lands should be returned to a permanent cover crop immediately. This land constitutes a menace to the welfare of the Nation. In many sections of the country part of this land could be seeded to pasture grasses and many cattle and sheep could be removed from the forests and public lands. A move certainly beneficial to both the land and livestock operator. Many of the marginal acres now in small grains at one time grew a very substantial amount of timber and grass. We have here in the West one of the finest timber-growing areas in the Nation and we do not have a surplus of timber. If these marginal acres capable of growing timber could be returned to tree farming, and grasses planted on other marginal areas, the benefit would be fivefold. 1. Erosion would be stopped or at least retarded. 2. The fertility of the land would be increased, forming a "soil bank" which could be drawn upon by future generations as needed. 3. Critically needed summer range would be provided where the animals could not harm the new seedings of trees and grasses. With a billion acres in grass, our Nation's largest crop, no one has ever proclaimed we have a surplus of pasture grass. 4. Forested watersheds which produce much of the usable water in the Western United States could be rehabilitated. A good reforestation program would then become possible on our watersheds with the resulting increase in production of water, timber, pasture, and playgrounds for future generations. 5. To eliminate the surplus and storage problem: If quotas were set at domestic-consumption levels storage problems would soon be eliminated. In fact, the export market should dispose of the surplus grain now on hand in a short time. II. The wheat acreage allotment should be changed to bushel allotments because 1. The acreage allotment has not been successful in reducing either the accumulated surplus or the amount of wheat raised. Each year. as the acres have been reduced, more bushels have been produced per acre by using only the best land and fertilizing heavily. 2. The bushel allotment could be much more successful as each farmer would receive an allotment of a certain number of bushels and could sell or turn in to the total supply only that amount. If he used very fertile ground, new and better variety of seed, or heavy applications of fertilizer, his allotment would be measured in bushels just as the surplus is measured. It doesn't make sense to measure the surplus in bushels and each farmer's production in acres. Under the present acreage allotment programs the man who mines his soil has been rewarded and at the same time the conservation farmer who cares for his soil has been penalized. III. We believe 100 percent of parity should be the price each farmer is paid for his production of basic crops under this program because 1. It is the only way the farmer can absorb his drastic cut and stay in business. 2. One hundred percent of parity is only the farmer's fair share of the national income. 3. The costs of this 100-percent parity program on the reduced production could be paid in part by the funds now being used for the storage program. A more realistic payment for the establishment of soil-building crops on these diverted acres would be necessary to make a soil-building program possible. The partial destruction of our land has been accomplished over a period of some two or three hundred years by many generations who had neither the tools, the education, nor the need for proper soil or water management. We do not believe anyone would ask the farmers of today to rebuild or pay more than their share for the rebuilding of this Nation's soil and water resources. This is a national problem and as a Nation it is time we realized the seriousness of the situation. In this land of ours more and more demand is being placed every day upon the recreational facilities in the forested areas. There seems to be no limit to the demand and there is no better way of satisfying this demand than growing the pasture and feed on these diverted acres while the range and forests are rested and being rebuilt to their former condition. We have in this land the resources of 3,700 soil-conservation districts organized and operated under State laws which cooperate with county, State, and Federal agencies. These districts cover 90 percent of the farmland of the Nation, are operated at the grassroot level by farmers well acquainted with local problems, and have an action program designed to develop the soil and water resources of this Nation. We have here, now, a wonderful opportunity in a time of more than plenty to accomplish a miracle of reconstruction by proper soil and water management. Let's get rid of this surplus, turn a problem into an opportunity and let these diverted acres work for all of us by building a more useful and beautiful America. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Bert Barlow. STATEMENT OF BERT D. BARLOW, CHARLES W. BARLOW Mr. BARLOW. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, for the record my name is Bert Barlow from Hazelton, Idaho. I operate three farms as well as a bean-processing plant. Hazelton is in Magic Valley which is along the Snake River in south-central Idaho which is more commonly known as the Twin Falls area and I should like to talk to you about dry edible beans. Beans are a nonbasic commodity like tung nuts or grain sorghum, however, they are a major commodity in Idaho, Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Michigan, California, and New York as well as producing a large percentage of the agricultural income in New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, and Washington. The Government loan prices on beans throughout the United States were set at 68 percent of parity last March and it is interesting to note that the price which comprised the 68 percent of parity included the processing and bagging charge to the warehouseman which prepares them for immediate consumption. This amounts to 91 cents which in turn is 15 to 20 percent of the total loan value on the beans. It was this total loan value which was used in arriving at the figure of 68 percent of parity. It is interesting to note that the total processing charge on wheat which was taken into consideration amounted to slightly less than 6 cents a bushel and on cotton there is no charge taken into consideration for ginning or any other processing. Regardless of what you may hear, I find that many of the farmers in southern Idaho are suffering a severe loss this year. It is true that the prices which they are receiving for their commodities are much higher than the period at which parity was calculated, but their cost of labor operations such as taxes, labor, and machinery, have gone up in a greater proportion than their incomes. The CHAIRMAN. You mean local taxes, State taxes? Mr. BARLOW. State and national. The CHAIRMAN. That is income, is it not? Mr. BARLOW. That is State; I beg your pardon. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that is something that we do not have any jurisdiction over. Mr. BARLOW. I realize that. The CHAIRMAN. You can take that to the Government and the representatives; they might try to give you some help. Mr. BARLOW. It is one of the farmer's costs. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. Mr. BARLOW. He figures that in. The CHAIRMAN. I say that we have no jurisdiction over it. Mr. BARLOW. I note from quotation that the typical commercial farmer got less than 50 cents per hour for his labor last year whereas the minimum United States wage for labor is $1 per hour and that only for unskilled labor without any capital investment required. Farm people had an average income last year of $907; non farm average income was $1,831. The farm per capita income it is true has risen 15 percent since 1947, but nonfarm income has gone up just twice as fast. The people's food dollar is buying much more than food. There is more processing, services, lights, sanitation, refrigeration, display, quality, transportation, and higher wages than ever before. True we are creating surpluses of many of the essential food commodities, but people's food capacity is limited although their desire for cars, new homes, TV sets, clothes, and gadgets increase with their income. I am sure that you're wondering what is to be the end of this in view of the fact that the Government has made a reduction of 31 million acres on basic crops and still a surplus is being created. |