must have the courage to carry a large reserve without too much concern and with agricultural income on a par with other groups in our economy, we could look forward to a long period of national prosperity.

I am a landowner operating 4 family-type farms (1,000 acres), with tenants on a stock-share lease.

LONGVILLE, MINN., October 13, 1955.

HUBERT HUMPHREY,

Minneapolis, Minn.

DEAR SIR: At the Worthington session of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, we would like the following resolution presented:

"Whereas the small farmer is faced with ruination because of the constant drop in the prices of his products; and

"Whereas a fair share of the national income going to the farmers would benefit the entire economy; and

"Whereas the dairy farmers and all other family-sized farm operations are already severely hurt: Therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the Trelipe Farmers Union Local, meeting October 10, 1955, goes on record urging your Senate Committee on Agriculture to take immediate steps to place a Federal floor, based on full parity, under all farm prices." The above resolution was adopted October 10, 1955.

CLIFTON NELSON, President.
ELNA SAMPTION, Secretary.

STATEMENT FILED BY A. T. NORLAND

As I see the farm situation-We all know we have been through a period of heavy spending, both by Government and by individual alike. Times have been very good. A person could hardly make a mistake no matter what the venture in times like we had.

Now on a peacetime basis we would like to continue to have more of the same. How, you ask? Do we want to keep on with Government paying the bill? I for one feel Government or anyone else owes me anything unless I work for it. Why did our fathers and forefathers come to this country? Answer is simplefreedom; freedom to do things they weren't allowed under any other government. Have we lost the initiative to want to try for ourselves?

Sure I believe Government should help in an emergency, but let us not get into a position of feeling we need help every time some little upset comes along. I have never believed in supporting prices at any time for the reason when you support prices on a given commodity you in turn are supporting some in many more people who really need no help. Doesn't it seem to you if a family has $50,000 or a $100,000 that he needs help? Yet the bigger the operator the more help he got. If you want to make a price for anything just remove it until it becomes a scarce article and create a want for it and you will have price how you may say? I know we have to think and then think some more but just suppose we could take land out of production that should never have been taken out of grass and say Government paid if it were held out for a period of say 3 years then only to a farmer who really needed help.

Suppose Government were to loan money to a farmer who would purchase a farm at a fair price at a low rate of interest and a long period of years. That way Government would not lose anything and the farmer would be working for himself.

I feel our support system has led us into trouble and will continue to do so. If we want to keep this country of ours free and I am sure most of us do, let us get on our knees and ask God's help and not Government to help us and I am sure we will find a way.

Thank you.

STATEMENT FILED BY ELVIN NELSON, WINTHROP, MINN.

I own and operate a 1731⁄2-acre farm. I am not a dairy farmer. I feed cattle and I raise hogs. The 90-percent supports should never have been reduced. There was no overproduction of dairy products; it was just underconsumption.

The American people were only using about half per capita of what it was a few years back.

The Secretary of Agriculture should be the farmers' No. 1 public relations man and tell the American people the true story in regard to agriculture. The American factory worker can purchase for an hour's wages more than twice as much butter for an hour's income as he could in 1929. And that holds true for most of the other farm products as well.

I spoke to the businessmen of Winthrop and Gaylord in April in 1954 when the supports were dropped to 75 percent of parity on dairy products, of the possibility on setting aside 1 day a week as a dairy day. I received 100 percent cooperation. They took it from there and set aside every Thursday for serving milk instead of coffee and serving an extra patty of butter.

The slogan was "Make mine milk." They sold 150 percent more dairy products on those days than any other day. Think of what could have been done had our Secretary of Agriculture gone out for that kind of a promotional program. I feel that the American people would have given it their full support as they did at Wintrop and Gaylord.

Public relations is the one field which must be greatly expanded in regard to agriculture. In regard to agriculture it has never been defined what is a surplus. Is it an extra day's supply, or 1 week, or 1 month, or 6 months? When that is defined we should get parity until such a goal is reached. The old parity formula should be used. Then, if we find that we can produce more than to maintain such a supply, land should be taken out of production and placed in a land bank in reserve for future acres. Rental on such acres should be based on percentage of the value of such acres. All the grain should be supported. Corn being the base crop in America, the rest of the grains should be supported according to their feed value in relation to corn.

Let us have plenty at a fair price so everybody can enjoy the benefits thereof. I am against the sliding scale which is to create a scarcity, which is not in the best interests of the farmer or the American people. We have never tasted scarcity, hunger, and want in America. Let us not create it now. Again I say, let's have a program of plenty at a fair price.

STATEMENT FILED BY CLAUDE NORTHEY, MILFORD, IOWA

My name is Claude Northey and I live near Milford, Iowa, which is located about 40 miles south of Worthington.

I am grateful for the opportunity to present my thoughts to this committee and wish to thank all who have helped make it possible.

I carry on a general farming program of crops, beef, and pork on a 140-acre farm. I feel that the plight of agriculture in the economy today is serious, but not serious enough to need high supports. They would only mean more of everything next year.

The corn sealing program has turned into a big operators jackpot. Too many people are just raising corn for the Government, and the program was never intended to be that way. The farmer of 200 acres or less feeds most of what he raises and should have a smaller percentage cut in acres than the larger farmer, because he has a larger investment in machinery and equipment per acre. He possibly has enough to farm 320 acres if he could rent it. The program is definitely pointing to larger farms.

If you want to borrow money at the bank you give security and they will loan about 60 percent of what the security is worth. Why then, should the Government loan 100 percent.

If the loans on corn were 70 percent of the present rate, or about $1.10 per bushel in northwest Iowa, it would solve the storage problem. Or, if the Government must loan at the present rate, give 70 percent or $1.10 at date of loan and when the loan is due, if the farmer does not redeem it, the Government should take the corn and issue bonds for the balance (30 percent) which could not be cashed for 10 years.

Consideration should be given to the amount of corn that could be sealed. Perhaps there should be a limit of one-half the average productive ability of that general area, or not to exceed 4,000 bushels for any 1 landowner or tenant in any 1 year. On rented farms the base would be divided at the same rate

as rent paid.

All diverted acres should be planted to a soil-building legume or mixture and not be planted to a crop that is in competition to a restricted crop in some other section of the country.

If a soil-fertility-bank method is adopted, special consideration should be given in the reduction of acres to the smaller operators because their investment in machinery is greater per acre than the large operator. Percentagewise it would be fair to reduce all the same but in reality it would encourage larger operations.

STATEMENT FILED BY OSCAR OLDS

How can agriculture be basically sound? Compare a farmer's expenses with his prices. Isn't it true that 1955 to date has been similar to the once depression years for farmers?

STATEMENT FILED BY GEORGE W. OLSON, JACKSON, MINN.

My name is George W. Olson. I have operated my farm in Jackson County, Minn. for 37 years. I engage in grain farming, cattle and hog feeding. I employ one man. I regard the present decline in farm prices as fast approaching disaster levels. As an individual farmer I realize my inability to regulate or control prices on my farm commodities. This is a dangerous condition, unfair, and uncalled for.

To help correct this unfair condition I request the aid of Congress in providing price supports of not less than 90 percent of parity (old formula) on all basic and storable commodities, 100 percent supports for cattle, hogs, milk and its products, eggs, poultry, and other perishables with authority to use production payments when and where necessary.

In order to maintain these price supports I think it will be necessary to have controls of acres planted and also marketing quotas.

To further elaborate on what and how these controls should apply. The main purpose should be to maintain production at a level to meet domestic needs and an ample holdover reserve for national security. Under any plan of production controls and acreage restrictions the farmers take-home pay must be protected. Proposals for limited payments to individuals who are in compliance I think is unnecessary, unjustified, and discriminatory.

The flexible plan of price supports is not working for the farmer, but has proven a windfall for the processor. It has in no way helped the consumer.

STATEMENT FILED BY EUGENE J. O'NEILL, BEARDSLEY, MINN.

I am a farmer, actively engaged in farming; I am now and have been for several years a member of the Farmers Union. I have spent considerable time and effort, as have thousands of other members in trying to further the cause of this organization and attain the end for which it was organized, that is to secure for agriculture its fair share of the national income.

I have attended many meetings and conventions, I have listened to many prominent members and others, including a few politicians, speak. They all told us the same story. They all criticized present conditions. They all told us we were being sold down the river, that we were being exploited by big business and unless we followed their leadership we were headed for bankruptcy.

I have talked to members of other farm organizations. They tell me the same story that unless they followed their leaders, they too were doomed to failure. Each organization claims to have the panacea to cure all our ills. All their programs are different. They cannot all be right. Their lobbyists and leaders go before committees of Congress, each with a different plan, until the average Congressman does not know just what the farmer really does want. I realize that the farmer represents only about 13 percent of the voting population of the United States, but if these farm organizations would go before congressional committees with a unified program they would be heard.

In contrast to this we have two great labor organizations, the AFL and the CIO. They have their differences, they each strive for increased membership, they strive for greater representation and bargaining power in our factories and in industry, and yet when it comes to the welfare of their members, they forget their petty differences, and present a united front when testifying before our congressional committees. A Congressman then knows what they want, but not so our farm organizations. They remind me of a team of mules. Jenney

pulled all she could, then Jack pulled all he could and nothing moved until they both pulled together at the same time, then the load moved.

During the dark days before and during the great Civil War, President Lincoln, in speaking of the secession of the Southern States, said, "Together we stand, divided we fall." This should be the motto of our farm organizations. No football, basketball, or baseball game was ever won without teamwork. This is what our farm organizations lack, teamwork, iron out their differences beforehand and present a united demand to Congress for action. Without this teamwork, without this united action, nothing worthwhile is ever going to be accomplished.

The Second World War would have been lost by the Allies, if the great nations involved had not compromised their differences and placed their armies under a unified command, surely it should not be impossible for our farm organizations to do the same and present a united front when the welfare of the farmer is at stake.

The one stumbling block, as I see it, is that our farm organizations are becoming political organizations and injecting too much partisan politics. The farmers' plight is economic and not political and should be treated as such. We saw in the late 1920's, and early 1930's how playing politics with human misery turned out. We had a Congress dominated by one political party, and an administration dominated by the other. In thier jockeying for political advantage they forgot the plight of the farmer, and as far as that goes the plight of financial and industrial institutions until they brought the economy of this Nation to the verge of bankruptcy. Had they compromised their differences at that time and passed the necessary legislation, this disastrous period would never have happened. Again I say teamwork.

So I say let divorce politics from our farm organizations. Get them back to the purpose for which they were originally created. Get the leaders and, yes, our high-salaried lobbyists to compromise their differences and then present to the Congress a unified request for beneficial farm legislation. If they cannot or will not do this, then in all decency they should resign, and let new blood take over and get for agriculture its rightful share of the national income.

STATEMENT FILED BY OSCAR OVERGAARD

I believe we should have controls on our products from 90 to 100 percent of parity, also a floor on our products to keep the bottom from dropping out completely. I believe we should have compulsory program on the bank of soil conservation.

STATEMENT FILED BY WILLIAM B. PEARSON, MASTER, MINNESOTA STATE GRange, OGILVIE, MINN.

My name is William B. Pearson, and my address is Ogilvie, Minn. I am master of the State Grange of Minnesota, and I live on a diversified farm which produces registered seed, hogs, and dairy products.

THE FARM PROBLEM

Our capacity to produce agriculturally in this country exceeds our available markets, both home and abroad, by a rather sizable amount. If it is true that our population will not build up to the place where the increased demand generated solves our supply and demand problem in agriculture within the next few years, it might be well for us to plan for the worst. Planning for the worst would mean pursuing further two alternatives-probably both at the same time: (a) Increased markets: This involves both domestic and foreign markets. It involves advertising, promotion, surplus disposal, school-lunch programs, the utilization of agricultural products in business and industry, and whatever we can accomplish toward a stronger animal agriculture. This latter point involves the matter of marketing 6 or 8 pounds of grain for every pound of meat we market. This is also true of milk and eggs.

Gradually we are going to gain back the ground we have lost in selling abroad. This is especially true of three crops-wheat, cotton, and rice. There are three schools of thought concerning the export field. One believes primarily in guaranteeing farmers 100 percent of parity for their total production of export crops,

with a production-control program so caustic and so complete that it would be able to pull down supplies in accordance with the demand. This group would also buy export subsidies from the taxpayer.

Another would actually like to flex the price of all our United States production of export crops down to the world free market export price. As it is the world price is always a few dollars or a few cents below the United States support level. This means that we are a residual supplier on the world market. The Grange is between these two groups. It would allow the free-market price to be established through normal transactions of business, and then to build up the income to the farmer on his domestic production to be used for domestic food consumption by issuing him a certificate for his fair share of the Nation's total use of these commodities for domestic consumption.

We must recognize that declining levels of farm income following war and necessary adjustment periods have always come first of all and most drastically in our major export crops.

It appears that the Congress is wasting its effort in battling as to whether farm commodities should have flexible or fixed supports. About the only difference is that with fixed supports the Congress sets the support level and with flexible the Secretary of Agriculture sets the support level.

The farm program should be free from politics but it isn't. It is building into a major issue in the next presidential race. With Republicans, except for a few heretics from the wide spaces, flexible supports, however inflexible, are rapidly becoming a matter of faith. The Democratic party now avows its support of 90 percent with at least as much religious fervor as it opposes sin. The reason we believe that neither flexible nor rigid supports are the answer is because either or both pose the following problems:

1. The surplus problem: The Government has acquired large stocks of products it did not want and which cost money to store.

2. The control problem: As surpluses become embarrassing, acreage allotments and marketing quotas are necessary. Either the controls are politically acceptable and not very effective, or they are effective and politically disagreeable. 3. The trade problem: Our farm prices are supported above world price levels so our export products have to be subsidized and imports of price-supported products have to be limited.

4. The discrimination problem: A fair measure of security is provided for storable crops, but little or no protection is provided perishables.

In this matter of curtailing production it seems that it would be good sense for us in some way, somehow to work it out so that we could get some of the Dust Bowl area back into sod where it belongs. We should do this if possible under private ownership. Can we not work out some system of leasing this land, or perhaps in compensatory payments of some sort or other, that would get this land back into grass? If we do this, spending considerable money in the process, then we must have assurance in the way of some kind of contract from the owner that it will not be plowed up again unless we have some sort of national emergency, to be proclaimed by the President.

This might take out of production somewhere around 8, 10, or 15 million acres. Of course, these acres do not contribute nationally to the Nation's breadbasket, so this would not solve the problem. It is here that you run into the necessity for renting outright, or in some other way getting genuinely productive land out of production for the time being.

Before long we may be in a position to have a nationwide program using the land-capability classification as the base, as now proposed for the Great Plains, thereby providing farmers with proper incentives to take class VI and VII and VIII land out of cultivation (there are 40 million acres of this), and make appropriate adjustments in their rotations on the rest, especially IV and III lands. A stepped-up ACP program might accomplish the most of the above objectives without passing a new law. There would necessarily need be close working arrangements with the Soil Conservation Service.

If we are to be realistic we must recognize both the evils of declining farm income and the evils of the fixed-price program. It means that we must expand the Marketing Agreements Act, even though such an approach borders on monopolistic practice. We must recognize that we cannot continue to provide protection from world competition or disastrous world price levels and wage levels, as we have been doing in dozens of ways on the one hand and then expect to continually lower the level of farm prices, even in our domestic economy, to a point where they become strictly competitive in world commerce. We must find a better way.

Agriculture is really feeling the pinch. While industry and labor have been enjoying unprecedented prosperity, agriculture, since 1951, has seen a 30-percent