Source: Survey Current Business, September 1955, Office of Business Economics, Department of Commerce. TABLE IV.-South Dakota farms, farm characteristics, and farm products Source: 1950 Census of Agriculture and 1955 Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. South Dakota, livestock and poultry on farms and ranches, Jan. 1, 1955 Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Source: 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, annual summary, acreage, yield, and production of principal crops, Crop Reporting Board, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and StateFederal Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Sioux Falls, S. Dak. TABLE V.-Comparative analysis of South Dakota farm income (not including Government payments) TABLE VI.-Analysis of type of farms in South Dakota, 1950, 1954 The CHAIRMAN. Would you be able to tell us what percentage of the wheat that is grown in South Dakota is millable wheat? Mr. RozUM. According to the figures, they repay 65 and 70 percent of the loans, which shows that much more than that would be millable high-protein wheat. The CHAIRMAN. Would it be possible for the farmers of South Dakota to grow more millable wheat, if the proper incentive were provided? Mr. Rozum. There are probably others on this panel who could answer that better, but I would say yes. The CHAIRMAN. I hope that those who testify hereafter will bear that question in mind. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Senator MUNDT. I would like to say that we in South Dakota are exceedingly fortunate in the fact that the Greater South Dakota Association, which is largely an association of businessmen, industrial people, has taken a very direct and helpful interest in agriculture, in the farm program, and in soil-conservation practices. Senator HOLLAND. This organization of which you speak, is it similar to the State chambers of commerce, which exist in most other States? Mr. Rozum. Yes: it is. Senator HOLLAND. This is the organization which serves as a State chamber of commerce? Mr. Rozum. Yes. I would say so. Senator HOLLAND. Thank you. Mr. THUE. At this time I would like to introduce to you the representative of the South Dakota Farmers Union, Harold Golseth. STATEMENT OF HAROLD GOLSETH, VICE PRESIDENT, SOUTH DAKOTA FARMERS UNION, IRWIN, S. DAK. Mr. GOLSETH. Mr. Chairmant and members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, I am Harold Golseth, vice president of the South Dakota Farmers Union. At the request of President Paul W. Opsahl, who is presently traveling in Europe, I am officially representing the South Dakota Farmers Union at these hearings today. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will read to the committee at this time a brief statement, which Mr. Opsahl would have made had he been able to attend. We applaud efforts of this committee to seek out the truth on the farm situation, by going to the grassroots in hearings such as these. We believe that, as you feel the pulse of American agriculture, you will find it has a beat that is steadily growing weaker as the everincreasing downward pressure of the sliding scale is brought to bear on farm prices and income. Mr. Chairman, speaking as a farmer myself, and as a farm organization official who travels this State from end to end, meeting with our thousands of farmer members who make their living from the soil, we say to you that farmers today are in the same type situation that they were in the 1920's. The constant lowering of price supports on milk, oats, barley, rye, sorghums, soybeans, corn, and wheat has not cut farm production in South Dakota as we had been told it would. But it has cut farm income by a considerable amount in this State and it has cut the number of farmers. During the first 6 months of this year net farm income in South Dakota fell more than $17 million from the same period in 1954. That, Mr. Chairman, was despite an increase in the sale of farm production. Early this year the Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association. of St. Paul, Minn., conducted a family farm survey in South Dakota and other upper Midwest States, to see how the farmer was faring. Six counties from diversified areas in South Dakota were chosen and at least 10 percent of the farmers in each one of those counties, representative of South Dakota agriculture, were surveys. That is, their records were surveys those used for reporting their taxes to the Internal Revenue Department. This survey showed that gross farm income in South Dakota in 1954 was $8,932 on the average, per farm. This figure includes a $300 allowance for food raised and consumed on the farm by the farm family. On the basis of a preliminary recheck of these same farmers this past month, economists working on this survey have estimated that gross farm income will be down an average of $1,000 per farm in 1955 from 1954. That, Mr. Chairman, represents a loss of more than $60 million in bank accounts and sales to farmers in this State, where everyone is so dependent upon the farmer for his income. We submit that this is conclusive evidence, proving that, contrary to prevailing theory in some quarters, lower prices do not add up to higher farm income. Results of the Farmers Union GTA survey show that the average South Dakota farmer needs to spend $1,029 for repairs and paint on his buildings, $1,945 for new buildings, and $1,956 for new equipment. These requirements totaling $4,930 are exclusive of personal and household requirements. Still citing results of this survey, 44 percent of our farmers do not have cold running water, 56 percent do not have hot running water, 31 percent do not have telephones, 58 percent do not have bathroom facilities, and 58 percent do not have central heating. You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that these are not luxuries we are referring to, but everyday living necessities that city-dwelling Americans not only take for granted, but wouldn't think of living without. Yet our farmers are deprived of normal living necessities because they can't afford them. We ask in all sincerity, is it right that the reward for hard work should be lower and lower prices? Is it economizing to force farmers to accept substandard prices? Since so many people are directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture for a living, we believe the answer to that is an emphatic "No." The tragic irony of all this is that, while farmers must take less and less under the sliding scale, their costs have come down but little if anything at all. In many cases, their burdens have increased. In 1947, Mr. Chairman, when agricultural income was at its peak, the total assessed evaluation of real estate and personal property in South Dakota was $1,041,137,233. Taxes on that amount were $32,811,130. In 1954, the total assessed evaluation was $1,271,354,707, for an increase of 22 percent. But taxes were $52,311,675, for an increase of about 62 ercent. Taxes went up nearly three times as much as totaled assessed valuation, and at a time when farm income was greatly reduced. The reduction of farm income at a time when the State needs more tax revenue to serve the needs of its people is a very unhealthy economic situation. The sliding scale works to the detriment of farmers. Further evidence proving this is contained in a report by the South Dakota Livestock Reporting Service showing what has happened to the farm mortgage debt and land values between 1945 and 1954, and in the farm census report by the United States Department of Commerce. The former shows that in 1949 the farm mortgage debt was $82 million-the lowest since 1910. By 1954, however, this had increased to $112 million. This report also shows that the value of land per acre and buildings reached a high point of $40.73 in 1952, and dropped to $37.84 in 1954. This indicates, we believe, that farmers are living on the depreciation of their property and perhaps on the little savings they have accumulated. This summer the United States Department of Commerce released its report on the farm census, showing that South Dakota lost 3,932 farms since 1950. We wish to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the major portion of this decline took place in the last 2 years. We believe then, that should it continue to be Government policy to flex farm price supports lower and lower, and thus in the process reduce farm prices, it bodes a tragic end for not only our family farmers, but also for our schools, churches, and towns that are so dependent upon agriculture. The 20,000 farm-family members of the South Dakota Farmers Union favor a family-type farming, believing it to be the basis of democracy. We ask that legislation be geared to a family-type farm economy and that legislation be enacted to hinder industrial-type farming. More specifically, Mr. Chairman, we make these following recommendations: 1. Immediate repeal of the sliding scale or flexible price support provisions of the 1954 Farm Act, along with the so-called modernized parity formula. We believe the principle of withdrawing firm support just at the time when farmers need it most is wrong and a poor way of economizing, since it is at the expense of the agricultural producer. We further contend that farm prices can never rise under the modernized method of figuring parity, since it will be based on the prices of the preceding 10 years. In times of depressed prices, then, such as these, farm prices can only go one way under this method, and that is down. 2. We urge the enactment into law of House Resolution 12 at the earliest possible time in this next session of Congress, as a short-range policy. But as a long-range farm policy, we recommend a farm program based on 100 percent of parity price supports for family farm or ranch production. In this regard, we believe that legislation should be passed authorizing use of production payments in conjunction with other methods, which will provide 100 percent of parity for all farm commodities when producers demonstrate a willingness to keep supplies in line with consumer demand. The parity price formula should be designed to provide a set of farm prices directly related to the farm income required to maintain an expanding, full consumption, full employment economy. 3. We urge Congress to enact a mandatory price support program for family farm or ranch production of cattle, dairy products, hogs, sheep, poultry and eggs at 100 percent of parity with authority to utilize production payments and price support loans as methods of support. May we add, that we are opposed to any program which bypasses the interests of farmers to aid food processors or other middlemen. 4. We are opposed to any two-price of multiple-price support plans that will return to the producer a blended average of less than 100 percent of parity for the entire family-farm production. 5. We urge further expansion of the school-lunch program to make abundant United States farm production more readily available to all United States schoolchildren. |