STATEMENT FILED BY RALPH HORBERTS, READING, MINN. MACHINERY A tractor which I bought in 1949 cost $1,745; this same make tractor I bought August 18, 1955, cost $2,465. In October 1955 this same tractor cost $2,694. If the Government is trying to level things off, it cannot go on like it has the last few years. At the present times, the small farmer is going broke. Will say that the only way to stay in business is to farm larger and that will kill off the little farmer so I guess the only way is to do as the wheat farmer has been doing enlarge the farms for the few that can do this, and that will surely be a ruination to the American way of life. HOGS Will say that you cannot raise hogs for less than $17 to $18 per 100. With these high expenses, a Nobles County farmer that is renting 160 acres is not making a decent living. When you pay $31 for a set of three 14-inch plow blades, it will take a 250-pound hog; and that is too far out of balance. And it's that way all the way through the agriculture line. Senator HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minneapolis, Minn. LAKEFIELD, MINN., October 22, 1955. DEAR SIR: I farm in Jackson County, raise and feed beef cattle, and hogs along with cropland, which is 240 acres. A brother and myself farm together. Everybody knows that farm prices are down, mainly because we have an unfriendly administration toward our farm program. The only way we can get our prices back is with rigid support of 90 percent of parity or ranging to 110 with controls (production controls) and production payments on perishables. Acreage cuts and production controls should be set up to benefit the family-size farm. We should always remember to help needy countries with our surplus and by needy at home with the food-stamp plan. Please include this letter in the record of the hearings. Thank you. Yours truly, CLARANCE TOLLMAN. NEW RICHLAND, MINN., October 21, 1955. Hon. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minneapolis, Minn. DEAR SENATOR: We, of the New Richland local of the Farmers Union in Waseca County urge action on return of 90 percent of parity for farmers. Let loose the machinery set up to improve hog prices immediately to relieve the plight of the farmer. Please include this letter in the record of the hearing at Worthington. PERCY JENSEN, ' AMBROSE LINNIHAN, The CHAIRMAN. We will now recess until 1 o'clock. Whereupon at 12:05 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 1 p. m., of the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION. The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will please come to order. As I suggested this morning, we have quite a few witnesses to be heard this afternoon, and even though the committee is glad to hear from all witnesses, particularly about their personal troubles on their farms, we must remember that time is limited. We heard quite a few this morning, and ask witnesses this afternoon to confine their testimony to ways and means of solving the farm problem without going into too many details about their own complaints. We are familiar with these. As a matter of fact, that is why we are here, in order to try to help, and the way by which we can help will be to get suggestions from you that we can, in turn, consider and use in formulating legislation. Please review your written statements, and unless there is something new to offer the committee, I would certainly appreciate it if the statement be placed in the record rather than reading it in its entirety. Is Mr. Cassavant present? STATEMENT OF WILLIAM CASSAVANT, RED LAKE FALLS, MINN. Mr. CASSAVANT. My name is William Cassavant; I am a farmer from Red Lake County. I farm with my son 600 acres, and I have been connected with the farm program ever since it started. I noticed all day yesterday and today that you men wanted us to come to the point on this farm program. I have registered my resolutions in there, and I would just like to make a few points here; it will just take a few minutes. I think it has been clearly demonstrated by the farmers through the wheat referendum that they are in favor of controls in order to reach a satisfactory price. I would like to say that I figure that if we had allotments on bushels, bushel allotments instead of acres, and if-we will take wheat, for instance: If the country, the whole country, needs for all purposes 800 million bushels of wheat, why not break up this 800 million bushels in allotments, in bushel allotments, and make the changes up or down annually to fit the needs of the country on all grains and soybeans and corn. The CHAIRMAN. What would you do with the surplus? Mr. CASSAVANT. Surplus? Why, we would only take that 800 million bushels. We would not have any surplus. The CHAIRMAN. Under your plan you would control acreage? Mr. CASSAVANT. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. You mean there would be acreage cultivated to produce just 800 million bushels? Mr. CASSAVANT. We would break down the 800 million bushels into bushels like we do now with the acres, and if we wanted-I think that the public should be willing to pay a high support price for that, let us say $3. I have heard a recent Secretary of Agriculture make the statement that if the farmers produced the wheat and gave it away to the millers, that we could only hope to reduce the price of a loaf of bread by about 21% cents. I do not know whether that is correct or not. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Young? Senator YOUNG. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I just want to say that you are going to hear a lot more testimony of this kind in North Dakota. The farmers, many of them, would prefer to have the control on bushels rather than the number of seeded acres. Mr. CASSAVANT. Yes. Senator YOUNG. It does have a lot of merit to it, and you will have a lot of testimony on it in North Dakota. Mr. CASSAVANT. Let us have bushel allotments right down the line on wheat and oats and barley, and so on. We can tell by our past, our past experience, which has been that when we set an allotment just on one kind of grain, then these acres go into another kind, and we get in trouble there. But if we had allotments right down the line set up in such an amount just what the country needs and no more and, like I stated before The CHAIRMAN. Who decides the number of acres to be planted? Would the farmer do that or would the Department of Agriculture? Mr. CASSAVANT. No; I think the Department of Agriculture should do that. The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is as it is now, that is about the same process now. They figure out the number of acres necessary to produce so many bushels, and the acreage is fixed at that. Mr. CASSAVANT. The trouble, I think, with the program is now we set it on acres, and we do not know whether we will get 10 or 50 bushels of wheat. Senator THYE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask just one question at that point. What you propose is that the acre question would be left to the discretion of the producer? Mr. CASSAVANT. That is right. Senator THYE. That you would be given, assuming 800 bushels as your quota, that that is what you would market; anything above that you would be absolutely denied the right to go to market or to sell it. If you sold anything in excess of that you would be penalized? Mr. CASSAVANT. That is right. We could not sell anything in excess of that because we would be issued a marketing card, the same as we are now. Senator THYE. You leave, however, one question that is open-end, and that is when you had planted as many acres as you thought would give you 800, what would you do with the balance of the acres that might otherwise be planted to wheat? Mr. CASSAVANT. I would have to provide my own storage. I would not dump that surplus on the Government. Senator THYE. What would you do, would you continue growing wheat? Mr. CASSAVANT. I could hold it. Senator THYE. Would you put it in oats? Let us follow that question through. Would you put that into oats or barley or corn? You would have to have a fixed quota on all of your given commodities or crops, otherwise you would only slough over and make somebody else's problem more difficult by diverting the acres. If you answer that phase of the question what would you do over and above that 800 bushels of wheat, then I think you will help us, you see. Mr. CASSAVANT. Well, I do not think you would get very much over that amount if that was the only amount that you could dispose of. Senator THYE. But oats and barley you might, or corn you might. you see; that is the question. If you can resolve what you would do in those other crops, then I think we would start seeing a clear picture. Mr. CASSAVANT. Well, we would have allotments set on those other crops, and it would be handled just the same as wheat. Senator THYE. I see. In other words, you would allot every crop normally grown in the community? Mr. CASSAVANT. Individual allotments. Senator THYE. I see. Senator MUNDT. I would like to ask this question. Are you talking about a production allocation in bushels or a marketing allocation in bushels? Mr. CASSAVANT. I do not know if I got your question quite clearly. Senator MUNDT. Are you talking about a production allocation in bushels, each farmer can produce so many bushels, or are you talking about a marketing allocation that each farmer could market in bushels? Mr. CASSAVANT. I am talking about marketing so many bushels. Senator MUNDT. You could raise as much as you want to consume on your own farm, feed to your own livestock, but you are talking about a marketing in bushels?" Mr. CASSAVANT. That is right. If you grow wheat in excess of the 500 million bushels, if that is what the country needs, why, then, you would have to take care of your own surplus; that is all that we could buy. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Humphrey? Senator HUMPHREY. Just to make this point very clear, if you do go over your marketing allotment or your marketing quota, you would not be able to market that at all? Mr. CASSAVANT. That is right. Senator HUMPHREY. And you would have to provide self-storage on your own farm? Mr. CASSAVANT. That is right. Senator HUMPHREY. And you would have to feed it to your own cattle or livestock? Mr. CASSAVANT. You would either have to feed it or hold it to fill your quota the next year. Senator HUMPHREY. Or hold it in reserve? Mr. CASSAVANT. Yes. Some farmers I have mentioned brought it up at many meetings, and farmers have agreed pretty much that that would be a pretty good program, and they say there might be a lot of chiseling. Well, I do not think there would be any chiseling because the Government would set this 800 million bushels as what they need to carry on for a year's time, and if I could not fill my quota my neighbor's could be hauled in and fill in the balance of my bushels on my marketing card. It would be perfectly legal. Senator HUMPHREY. May I ask this question: You would still want to maintain what we call a normal reserve for emergency requirements for the Nation; would you not? Mr. CASSAVANT. That is right. The Department of Agriculture would set that amount that we need of wheat, oats, barley, or what ever. Senator HUMPHREY. For both our domestic consumption and our foreign export and our emergency reserve? Mr. CASSAVANT. That is right. Senator HUMPHREY. What would you do with the acres that you did not plant in anything? Mr. CASSAVANT. I would have an incentive payment on that. But before I get to that I would like to make this statement: That on these bushels that the country needs, let us let the public pay for that, not have the Government spend a lot of money on these things, because they are supposed to pay for it. Let us say that wheat had to go to $3 a bushel for what amount the country needs. Let us get that from the public, and then we would have those incentive acres set up to make up the difference of the fair share of the national income between what the farmers would get per bushel for this wheat and what is a fair share of the national income. It may mean that we would have to pay $5 or $10 an acre for these diverted acres, I do not know. Senator HUMPHREY. As I get the point, you would not store or seal this marketing quota production? Mr. CASSAVANT. Yes. I think that we would use the loan program as we have it now to take care of these 800 million bushels. Senator HUMPHREY. Up to your marketing quota? Mr. CASSAVANT. That is right. Senator HUMPHREY. But anything above that you would have to seal yourself or store yourself without any Government loan program? Mr. CASSAVANT. Yes, that is right. If the farmer sees fit to overproduce, why, that should be his headache to take care of the surplus, not the Government. Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you. Senator YOUNG. That would be along the lines of the Canadian wheat pool; would it not? The Canadian farmer is allowed to market only so many bushels each month-that which they find a market for it. Mr. CASSAVANT. Yes. Senator' YOUNG. It would provide the mechanics of it. In some respects it would be much the same as the Canadian wheat pool. Mr. CASSAVANT. I think the first thing on this program would be to cut down our imports to the bare minimum, because if we import a lot of this grain, and then have trouble with overproduction here it does not seem like it makes sense. Senator HUMPHREY. One other question, Mr. Chairman. Senator HUMPHREY. Do you feel, sir, with this soil fertility bank that has been talked about a great deal, or this acreage reserve that would be taken out of production, that along with that you also need your effective price-support program? You have heard some of the testimony here? Mr. CASSAVANT. Yes. Senator HUMPHREY. In other words, do you think that just by setting aside diverted acres this would answer the problem? Mr. CASSAVANT. I do not think so. Senator HUMPHREY. You feel that you would need a price-support or loan program along with it? Mr. CASSAVANT. Absolutely. Senator HUMPHREY. I am delighted to hear you say that, because I think sometimes there have been some who felt that the only answer, the only need, was a diverted acres program, and a conservation reserve |