7. Launching of a comprehensive study to improve and strengthen parity calculations.

STATEMENT FILED BY CHAS. F. SELLMAN, MABEL, MINN.

The only way we can control production is through acreage allotments.

In order to get farmers to cooperate there will have to be an incentive, such as rent payments for acres taken out of production. The rent would have to vary, to the value and productivity of the land.

There should be a year allowed for adjustment. Acres that are in corn today would have to be seeded to legumes which requires a nurse crop such as oats. Farmers should be allowed to raise oats on these acres he is in the process of seeding down in 1956. Thereafter these acres should be definitely out of production. They should not be used for hay or pasture. A farmer could be allowed to harvest legume seeds, alfalfa, and clover. There always has been more or less a scarcity of these seeds.

The hog price needs immediate action. Farm income in this locality is down 25 percent as our crops are marketed through hogs.

I don't see how we are going to be able to pay our bills this fall, things we have bought on credit, or borrowed money to buy. Such as concentrates, ferti

lizer, tractor fuels, repairs, farm machinery, and so forth.

I urge action to halt disastrous drops in hog producers' gross and net incomes by inauguration of a program to assure parity returns to farmers on hogs up to the volume of family farm production.

Production payments direct to farmers would be the best way, but such a program would take too long to put into action. Supporting hog prices received by farmers at 90 percent parity by means of purchases would make millions for the packer and those who have pork in storage, bought at these disastrous prices. Department of Agriculture could buy pork products only from packers who are willing to certify that farmers had been paid support-level prices.

STATEMENT FILED BY RALPH SHELDON, BAGLEY, MINN.

I would like you to know and remember that all the statements that I make are not made to discredit, belittle, or find the faults of any group or individual other than show the exact and truthful diagnosis of the unhealthy problems of the farmers of our United States, so that they may march forward with the fast advancing partners of labor and industry.

I think the greatest problem that confronts American farmers of today is the intentional and unintentional interference of politicians and all groups in and out of this country that are in politics to gain power or position in this country. Now what has it really done to the farmer? It has taken their legs competition and weakened them to such a great extent that they will never be able to stay with labor and industry and will be a stumbling block to the progress of this Nation. A lot of farmers have become the poor, poor child of the devoted, protecting parents-the United States. The politicians and such groups have demoralized these so-called children by promising and insisting that they should be entitled to a living wage even if it has to come to the expense of the Government to pay them the difference needed to make them a profit. Now this is a blind or club used for their self interests to gain votes and to get the weight of the farmers on their side. Of course, some men are blinded by this would-be good that they do not see the great beast that is growing behind it, that if left to grow will devour all involved. Now to accomplish these promises the Government must destroy free competition and must either put a false competition in its place or pay the difference direct to the farmer. In either case it is weakening the legs of competition and by so doing destroying progress instead of building it up.

Now what must we do then to help the farmer? First we must bring back these legs of progress competition and strengthen these legs by exercising them. Take all the imitation braces, etc., away so that its own true muscles can develop. It naturally will cause a lot of pain before these legs will be well and strong like for instance, some farms will be discontinued, some of the poor operating farmers will be weeded out, there will be fewer and bigger operated farms, there will be a group of farms under one manager and owned or shared by an operator, etc. Farms will change to a business with a home on it instead of a home with

a labor income derived from it. These legs of progress will take the farm, through the same roads that it has and will take industry, labor, and business. It seems hard to take, all these changes caused by competition feeding on the food of demand, but it has borne fruit to the good of man time and time again over the pains and losses of change. Take for example: small bakers have discontinued or consolidated with others as to cut expenses, and creameries have consolidated together. The pattern has followed all the way up through big business, for instance, even the large car companies are merging into larger groups. Free competition forces these things to happen to bring a continuous change and growth for the benefit of mankind to give him more and a better product at a cheaper price.

The second thing we can do to help the farmer is to build his mind and morals so that he can progress in this world. This can, of course, be accomplished by all forms of progressive education. Not this bewitched false political poison. We need less Government controls and more God controls.

STATEMENT FILED BY MERLE SHIRK, BRICELYN, MINN.

I am a livestock and grain farmer. We feed 250 cattle a year, seed some corn seed some soybeans. We farm 280 acres. I am neither a member of the Farm Bureau or the Farmers Union. I was a member for many many years, but when they came up with this flexible Farm Bureau plan, I quit them promptly of which I am very proud. When my favorite farm organization fails to represent the farmer I am through. Farmers are definitely not doing the thinking for the Bureau. The Republicans are, and its the same old song and dance of which a lot of we older people went through before the flexible plan-its not new to us who can remember. I am sick and tired of being told by these Farm Bureau bigwigs and all the economists who Secretary Benson hires, instead of hiring real down-to-earth people.

Instead of all these economists, they might have hired a few farmers, but no they put all the presidents of all the Republican colleges to run the farm program. I doubt if just one of these economists could even make a fair living. They would all be broke on this fine theory of growing more of everything to discourage production. It sounds fine and it can work on a few things but when put to work on all farm products, it spells disaster with a capital D. You farmers all know that if your expenses call for say a $4,000 income and the prices of the products you must sell bring less like they are today, what do you do? The answer is simple. You just raise more hogs like this year our Secretary of Agriculture has told me that we must get this grain cheaper and get into livestock, and now we have it 30 percent lower farm prices, 40 percent more hogs. The line will be endless and in all cases you will find it the same.

Now here's my idea:

Let's have parity on all farm prices, a cost of production index the same that labor has. They have a cost-of-living index so we must have a cost-of-production index. Labor has it, industry has fair trades practices and so on down the line-well organized against us. We don't care where parity is. Whether it's 90 or 50 just so it's on a par with labor and industry. For instance today if corn were at parity it would be about $1.80 per bushel and everyone would flock in the acreage allotment program. This would cut corn acres, cut hog production, and in no time fat hogs would be $20 to $25 per 100 pounds.

We could have allotments on soybeans acreage and parity on a limited acreage of beans would be $2.80 per. You would just see farmers flock for such a program. You wouldn't have to have quotes such as we have on wheat. We would seed down our excess acres to grass and plow it down and build our own soil fertility bank. We don't need acreage pay when we get a fair price for our products. The flexible plan would break us financially and also break our soil fertility banks. We would be better off to raise half as much for twice as much as twice as much for half price. No one will have to be paid to have such a program; it will carry itself.

There would be no socialism connected with this plan either. We would go in the program or stay out just as we like. No one to tell you what you should do. The price will tell you that answer and the Government will in time have no surplus at all. Let's give it a try, it's not really new you know. We could get in gear in a hurry. Put it to work on next year's crops and see if I'm not right. 64440-56-pt. 2- -23

STATEMENT FILED BY MARTIN SIMONSON, RUTHVEN, IOWA

My name is Martin Simonson and I live near Ruthven, Iowa, which is in the northwest part of the State in Palo Alto County. I have farmed all my life northeast of Ruthven and now own this 160-acre farm. My principal cash income has always been from the sale of hogs, cattle, and dairy products. It isn't often an Iowa farmer has the privilege of meeting with a Senate committee and I want you to know I appreciate it.

The farm-income situation in Iowa is serious, though high compared to the early thirties, the price structure is entirely out of balance. I have always used some hired farm labor and always figured that the sale price of two and not more than three 200-pound hogs paid for a month's labor of a good farm hand. Even during the early thirties this ratio was evident. Now the ratio is 5 hogs to 1 month's labor.

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers to the farm-price problem. Prices have been going down since 1951 and during most of that time we were operating on 90-percent parity on basic commodities. So that doesn't seem to be the answer to our problem.

The corn-sealing program seems to have turned out to be a market place for the landlord to sell his corn. The tenant, if he feeds a few hogs and cattle, has no corn to seal and it ties up the free corn at a price where it cannot be fed to livestock and come out with a profit.

I think the landlord should be limited and also the tenant to a sealing privilege of about 50 percent of their crop. That way we probably would not get the entire crop priced out of the world market as it is now.

If we want to ruin the hog market for future years, a good way would be to put a $20 floor under hogs. This would stimulate production to a point greater than ever and pork, being a perishable product, would create a greater problem than we now have. It is doubtful if we could ever control production in that way. My solution would be to have about a $2 drop in hog price when they are over 220 pounds, thus making an incentive to sell hogs light. Last weekend Austin, Minn., was paying $13 for 220-pound hogs and $12.50 for 300-pound

SOWS.

Our price-support program must be a realistic one-one that is good for the rest of the economy as well as for agriculture and one which will allow farmers to produce the things that are needed. The present system freezes production into a pretty definite pattern.

STATEMENT FILED BY WILLIAM H. STILLMAN, EMMETSBURG, Iowa

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and friends, I wish to express my thanks for this opportunity to discuss my thinking on our farm program. My name is Bill Stillman. I farm 320 acres near Emmetsburg, Iowa, in Palo Alto County.

Being a farmer, naturally I am interested in the highest possible income for the farmer. Since a farmer's income is derived from the amount of products sold, times the price, less the expense incurred, I believe there are three points upon which a farm program should be built.

First, I should like to discuss the amount of products. We all know that the problem is not how much a farmer can produce, but for how much he can find a market. Therefore, our first problem is to expand markets and increase consumption.

Perhaps the school-lunch program can be expanded, and certainly the foodstamp plan can be greatly expanded. Every other possible avenue of subsidizing consumption should be aggressively explored. Surely in this land of surpluses there should be no one who doesn't get all he or she wants to eat. A full stomach is the best weapon against subversion. We must also subsidize our exporters when the United States price is above the world market price.

Until we can find ways to market all we can produce, immediate steps must be taken to bring supply in line with demand with the exception of a reasonable amount of carryover to protect us against adverse weather conditions and short

crops.

These last few years we have had controlled acres without cross compliance. Its failure proves that we must use a more positive method. I recommend that the Government pay the farmers a reasonable amount, depending upon the productivity of the land, to let a portion of their land lie idle.

This program should be made attractive enough to farmers so that our surpluses can be brought down to a normal carryover in 2 or 3 years. It should

also be tied to our sealing program-if you do not leave a portion of your acres idle, you would not be eligible to seal any grain. In developing this program, we must not lose sight of our major problem of increasing consumption.

Secondly, we must consider the prices a farmer receives for his products. In setting price supports, we must consider two things: If it is too high, it will curtail consumption as well as induce the farmer to increase production. Yet it must be high enough that it will assure the farmer a little profit over cost of production.

Therefore, I believe that price supports must be on a flexible scale and a more sincere effort must be made by the United States Department of Agriculture to keep price support at the point where, if multiplied by our consumption, it will bring the largest return for the farmer.

The third point we must concentrate on is keeping the farmer's expense at a minimum. I think the average farmer can increase his efficiency. I feel the quickest and most practical way to do this is through the extension educational program. However, I believe that there should be radical changes made in the present extension program. With press, radio, and television alert to all new developments, ideas, and information reach the country long before it does by route of the extension field agents.

I would suggest that the Extension Service aid in farm recordkeeping and that all farms in the county should be included in a record association. Farms could be divided by size and type of farming practices. These associations should meet regularly and compare records. This would develop competition and induce farmers to either do a more efficient job and use good conservation practices, or discontinue less efficient enterprises. The results would be that the efficient operator could have a higher income because he would not have to compete with the products of the inefficient farmer, which in most cases now, are in surplus storage.

I also believe that our farm research should be directed toward increasing consumption of farm products rather than how to increase production.

In conclusion, I would like to re-state that I think our farm program should include expansion of markets abroad, increased consumption at home, controlled acres with cross compliance, payment for idle acres, flexible price supports, reduction of farm operating expenses, aid in farm record keeping and increased farm research.

STATEMENT FILED BY MARVIN SUNVOLD, SACRED HEART, MINN.

I wish to thank you for the privilege of filing my testimony with you. My name is Marvin Sunvold. I am the owner and operator of a 200-acre farm near Sacred Heart in Renville County, Minn., which I run with the help of my wife and three children, and I have lived all my life in Renville County. I am a director of the Renville-Sibley REA and have served in that capacity for 7 years. I am also serving my second term on the Renville County ASC Committee.

I am concerned because with the present prices, many farmers will be unable to meet the obligations involved in the conduct of their business. The farm depression now developing may prove disastrous to the family-owned and operated farm. Today our national economy is at its highest level, yet there continues to be a positive relentless pressure to degrade agriculture below the other segments of our economy.

To strengthen the farm economy and stop the trend toward big corporation farms, I respectfully suggest the following:

1. The farm programs should be farmer-run. The administration should be through the grassroots and up, not from the State ASC committee on down. The farmers want to have something to say about the solving of their problems and do not want dictation from the State committee appointees. The farm programs will be strengthened and will operate for the benefit of the farmers only if they are administered by the farmer-elected local committees. There should be no bypassing of these elected committeemen by such devices as the field-foreman position created by the State committee and other appointees attempting to take the authority from the local people. There should not be arbitrary restriction of the time to be spent by local committeemen; the only question is whether the time is well spent in the interest of the farmers involved and in good administration of the programs. I believe this point is essential to the well-being of the farmers and that strengthening of the local control by the duly elected committee representatives of the farmers will greatly improve the economic condition of our farms.

2. The REA program is essential to long-range farm stability and will increase the efficiency of the farmer. However, if there is not immediate help for the price situation, it is disastrous to the future development of rural electric service, cuts down the farmers' ability to use electricity, and makes it impossible to repay the loans to the Government. In my own experience as an REA director, I know that it is getting harder and harder for the farmers to pay their electric bills, and they are having to reduce the kilowatt-hours used. So any delay in the remedying of the present low-income position of the farmers jeopardizes the present REA program and its future development and the repayment of the loans to the Government also.

3. The original farm security loans should be restored to make it possible for young farmers to start out farming. I am one of the original borrowers from the farm security and without that program I could not have started on my own initiative.

4. There should be incentive payments to hog raisers, when the price drops below a certain floor to insure them at least of the cost of production. And I recommend at the present time that such payments be retroactive to save those hog raisers who already were forced to sell at loss and whose next year's farming operations are jeopardized by the losses they have sustained on hogs.

5. As for all perishables, my recommendation is a combination of (1) floor below which the price can't sink, (2) incentive payments, (3) using of the foodstamp and school-lunch programs as a constant thing and keeping the perishables moving in an even flow to stabilize the price in the market place.

6. The storables should be supported at full parity and at the old parity formula.

7. If allotments are needed to curtail surpluses of any one commodity, whatever land is cut out of production should be put under a good soil conservation practice to raise the fertility of the soil for future generations.

8. If land is taken out of production under a program of rental payments, the rental paid for the land should be based on the average income per acre of the land taken out of production.

SANBORN, MINN.

Hon. HUBERT HUMPHREY and ED THYE:

We are farming in the southern part of Redwood County and have been for almost 40 years. Up until 1944 we had a mortgage on the farm. By hard work and blessings of God we managed to pay it off.

When we had rigid price supports of 90 percent, we were able to buy machinery, tractors, and cars. Now the time has come to replace our tractor, car, and some of the machinery, but do not want to buy them with borrowed money. So labor and the smalltown businessman suffer with us. By the way, during the month of October three businesses closed their doors in the town west of us. Mr. Benson says we have a surplus of food. The eastern banks have a surplus of money, which is being poured into Europe and Asia. I would say, send these people this so-called surplus of food instead.

Another thing doesn't make sense to me, is let Canada send their oats and barley into our markets to depress our markets and support prices on those same products and ask the farmers to take land out of production.

Farmers' prices are definitely made in Washington, so-let us have rigid price supports across the board.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Mr. and Mrs. EDWARD TRAPP.

P. S.-We believe what is good for steel, petroleum, lead, copper, coal mine operators, magazines, sugar processors, and arms manufacturers is also good for us farmers.

STATEMENT FILED BY NORMAN THORSON

I believe we should have production and price controls. I also believe we should take better care of our soil so I think we should try this conservation soil bank. I also think that they should lower interest rates to the level as when the Republicans took over.