LONG RANGE FARM PROGRAM SATURDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1953 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Quincy, Ill. The committee met, pursuant to notice, Hon. August H. Andresen, acting chairman. Present: Representatives Andresen (presiding), Simpson, Lovre, McIntire, King, Poage, and Albert. Mr. ANDRESEN. The meeting will come to order. We are very happy to be here in this congressional district, with our good friend Sid Simpson, who is one of the active and able members of the Agriculture Committee. Our committee is very happy to be here. We were forced to split up this morning, and a part of the committee is in Bloomington for a meeting there, and this part came to Quincy for this hearing. The purpose of the committee is to go throughout the country, and hold hearings, to secure grass-root information from the farmers of the country, and others interested in agriculture. We have held hearings in the New England States, Eastern States, Southern States, and other States. This trip is the Midwest hearings, which began in Minneapolis, went into South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and yesterday we had a splendid hearing in Des Moines, Iowa, where we heard many from the State of Iowa. We are going to go from here into Indiana, and then to Ohio, and then on to the west coast, and we hope to have the real information from the farmers as to the type of program needed in the United States. We also feel that in these types of meetings we can bring Congress to the people, rather than have the people have to go to Washington to present their problems. Today, we have the pleasure of your own Congressman, Represenative Sid Simpson, to preside at the meeting. I would like for him to call the witnesses. We are forced to limit the time to 5 minutes, as I understand Sid has a number of witnesses lined up, and we may have a few who represent various organizations, and we want to give them time also. We want to hear everyone who has come here to make a statement to the committee. We are forced to take a plane this afternoon, and go to Indiana, but we hope we can arrange the time so they can all make a brief statement to the committee. Those of you who have written statements can file them with the committee clerk, and they will be given careful study and consideration. Now, I will turn the committee over to Sid Simpson, who will introduce his colleagues on the committee. Mr. Simpson. Mr. SIMPSON. Members of the Agriculture Committee, citizens who are here to testify, ladies and gentlemen, we are very happy to have you here. I would like to introduce the members of the committee [introduction of committee members: Mr. Albert, Mr. Antone Johnson, Mr. Poage, Mr. King, Mr. Lovre, Mr. McIntyre, and Mr. Andresen]. Since you are familiar with these hearings, Mr. Andresen, I would like for you to handle the first witnesses. Mr. ANDRESEN. I might advise the members of the committee that, due to a large number of witnesses, it will not be possible to ask questions or cross-examine the witnesses. STATEMENT OF E. T. FRANKLIN, SAN JOSE, ILL. Mr. FRANKLIN. In considering a farm program or farm policy, it is suggested that the first thing to consider is what is the objective, or what should a farm program accomplish for, not only the farm people, but also the urban population. It is first suggested that one of the objectives of a farm program should be the preservation of the financial stability of the farmers, equitable or comparable with other groups. Disastrously low prices could result in a deterioration of soils and equipment, and, finally, tragedy for America. The population in the United States has passed the 160-million mark, and has continued to grow. Farm surpluses, with the consequent lowering of farm prices, is a real issue deserving of attention. It is, nevertheless, a temporary problem. There is a danger within a few years that inadequate food supplies, not surpluses, will become our concern. Similarly, our current discussion of overproduction is apt to present our realizing the immense responsibility of farmers, that of providing food for God's children. This responsibility makes farming one of the greatest of all professions. We should not be found wanting when the real test arises. Would it not be well to revaluate both the present as well as future requirements? Perhaps it would be well to review just what is a surplus. Perhaps maldistribution is the cause of the so-called surplus. The development of an efficient agriculture is necessary if we are to meet the needs of the future. With these objectives in view, it is suggested that consideration be given to the conservation and improvement of our farm resources. Much of the strength and prosperity of the United States is due to our abundant natural resources. Our greatest natural resource is the fertile soil. Yet every farmer realizes that it is rapidly being depleted or washed away. The importance of conserving the soil for the future welfare of the Nation is an accepted fact by urban as well as by rural people. It is further suggested that consideration be given to what is the responsibility of the individual farmer, and what is the responsibility of the public as represented by the Government for the conservation of the soil. The basis for a farm program should be a certain percent of the cropland in good soil-building program. This program would accomplish several things. 1. It costs many farmers 80 percent of their gross returns to operate (labor and interest are taken into consideration). By building up the land he would be able to raise more bushels off less acres. would reduce his machine and operating expense, and enable him to This intensify his operation, thereby raising his own income and enable him to produce more and better food. 2. With more bushels per acre, would not this program develop more surpluses? It should not. First, if certain commodities did become overlarge, then the percentage of acres in soil-building practices could be raised. Speaking of the so-called corn surplus in Illinois-the reason we have the surplus is that the high support-90 percent-forced the consumer to curtail his purchase of the refined food. For example, corn being sealed at approximately $1.60 per bushel and, according to the law, the Government or Commodity Credit Corporation could not market that grain until it had reached approximately $1.85 to $1.90, placed the sealing program in competition with the produccion of meat or food, and it is agreed that approximately 85 percent of the grain raised in the Midwest is fed to livestock. It takes approximately 400 to 600 pounds of grain to produce 100 pounds of gain, which, in turn, will produce 50 pounds of food. With corn selling for $1.35 and the sealing price of 1.60 makes that amount of corn under seal unavailable for feeding, or if available, it raises the cost of producing that 60 pounds of food so high that the consumer is forced out of the market, thereby reducing the demand for corn, as well as curtailing the demand for the refined food (meat), and thereby encouraging the building up of surpluses. See supplemented paragraph on page 4. This soil-building program will make available more pasture and hay or silage, and help to produce more refined food, meat, butter, eggs, etc., at a price that the consumer will be able to purchase, which results in better living for the consumer and more farm products used. It will enable the farmer to intensify and be more efficient. For the farmer who does not wish to be in the livestock business, properly managed, it will enable him to increase his yield per acre, and still continue to maintain and improve his soil. Regarding commodity under seal, it is recommended that under such a program as outlined above that we should look at what constitutes a surplus from a realistic viewpoint. Several years of abundant crops at home, together with an improvement of agriculture production abroad, together with a high rigid support, have resulted in the present accumulation of large surpluses of wheat, corn, and other foodstuffs. We are inclined to look upon these extra supplies as a dangerous burden. Would it not be more reasonable to take advantage of these reserves to give at this time more attention to building up our soil resources and improving farming technique? We stockpile many scarce materials for emergency. Is not food one, if not the most essential in time of peace, and still more important when disaster strikes? A program of conserving and building the soil would develop a reserve to draw on in case of need or emergency. In regard to surpluses of certain commodities, it is also recommended that consideration and perhaps investigation would be in order of the wide range of price between what the producer receives for his product and what the consumer pays. Does the producer really benefit from some of the indirect supports of certain commodities, or does he just get the blame for the high price of certain refined products? Of necessity a good land-use or soil-conservation plan must be spread out over a period of years, ranging from 3 to 6, 7, or 8 years, and requires good management and long-time planning. A great deal of land has been depleted over a period of years. A good land-use program perhaps will require an outlay of additional capital to improve the soil. Also an efficient agriculture requires good management and intensifying of farming methods, which in turn call for additional buildings, livestock, etc. This also calls for additional capital. It is suggested that plans be made, and if necessary, legislation enacted, making it possible for the farmer to get adequate financing, payments for loans being made over a period of 5 to 10 years. These loans could be insured loans from banks or direct loans from Government. However, it would help build the community if the banks could handle these loans. Banks should be encouraged to participate in this program. Existing agencies should be used to assist in handling these transactions. Farm Home Administration has been very efficient and helped develop better management. Production Credit Corporation, now mostly farmer owned, should be encouraged to expand. They also have helped a great deal with management. Attention should be called to the inequality of the present method of acreage allotments under the present system of acreage controls. For example-the commercial corn area comprises 10 Midwest States. Several years ago a so-called surplus of corn developed. Acreage allotments were invoked on corn. Allotments in other crops outside the commercial corn area were also in surplus of other commodities. Thousands of unrestricted acres outside the commercial area were planted to corn, with the result that 34 percent of the corn raised in the United States was produced outside the commercial area where allotments were in order. Practically the same thing happens on the individual farm. The farmer who has put a large portion of his land in a good soil-building practice is restricted the same as the farmer who has overcropped his land. Too much alarm over agriculture surpluses could reflect a shortsightedness. Particularly so when we realize that 70 percent of the world population are suffering from malnutrition. Considering the enormous increase in the population, if we were still using the same methods we used 40 years ago, there would be a shortage of food today. A great deal of this increased production can be attributed to the educational and research work done by the Federal Government, the agriculture experiment stations, land-grant colleges, and our agriculture extension service. They improved methods, techniques, and economics in production, and the public gained as much from lower food costs as did the farmer. The standard of living has been greatly helped by the fact that research at public expense prevented the ravage of insects and diseases pertaining to crops and domesticated animals, and in many ways has increased the production per farm worker. It is further, therefore, recommended that education and research in the agriculture field should be expanded, if we are to keep pace with the increasing demand for food. Water management and soil management are synonymous. We wish to particularly commend and express our appreciation to Congress for the small watersheds, projects which are being developed by their direction. We in Illinois are especially grateful for the several projects authorized in this State. We would like to mention Hadley Creek, which is located in this community, and our own representative is very familiar with this activity and was most helpful in developing the project. Your consideration is asked in regard to the time limit as to the completion of these enterprises. Weather conditions and other ob stacles sometimes control action on some phases of these projects. Many times in order to get the job completed before the expiration date, certain structures are built in order not to lose the benefit of appropriation before the time limit, when perhaps a short delay would accomplish a great deal more good. It is recommended that a survey of these projects be made periodically in order to appraise the progress of the work, and that, if necessary, legislative steps be taken to extend the time for which these expenditures are appropriated. Honorable chairman and members of the House Agriculture Committee, individual American farmers are and should be most grateful to you for this opportunity to indicate to you the kind of a farm program they wish the Federal Government to enact. It is recognized that to develop adequate production and to maintain the productivity of the land, 25 percent of the cropland should be in soil-building practices. If incentive payments are to be continued it is recommended that such payment be based and paid on the farmers' compliance with this soil-building program. If support prices are to be continued and a stabilizing support is recommended such supports should be on a flexible basis with a minimum of 75 percent in time of abundance and 90 percent in time of short crop. To qualify for the support price the farmer should be required to comply with the soil-building program. STATEMENT OF EARL SMITH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and friends, I will try to be just as brief as I can. However, if you put your thoughts into a record on such an important question as these hearings you cannot just just make a few statements and cover the subject as I understand it. I naturally appreciate the invitation to appear, but I say, frankly, that I am not too happy about conditions existing. What these conditions are, plus the problems of the conditions of our country, will force me to say what I will on this occasion, if I am to be frank and honest. I don't think I need to tell these members, and these people, that for many years I have held to one conviction, and I believe it more now than ever before, that the prosperity of this Nation depends primarily on prosperous agriculture. I don't want to get into an argument about which came first, the hen or the egg. But if I were forced to do so, I'd take you back to Noah's Ark, and refer to the hen that went into the ark without the |