ALEXANDER, N. DAK., October 5, 1953. We, the members of Charbon Farmers Union, local No. 638 of McKenzie County, N. Dak., assembled this 26th day of September 1953 wish to make the following recommendations and suggestions to the agricultural committee of the lower House of Congress. 1. A. In the marketing of farm products we are in favor of the Federal Government taking a helping hand in determining prices of our products and a mandatory minimum price support through loans and purchase agreements at parity on all farm products. B. Maximum production and consumption of farm and perishable commodities with a Government support program instituted, so surpluses could be used to feed the hungry in this country and abroad as food will win the cold war, whereas, millions spent for armaments will not. The Federal Government should retain the control of the farm-storage program. 2. A. Under the farm-credit programs, laws should be enacted to safeguard our cooperative credit agencies such as our credit unions, production credit associations, and farm loan associations with the Government remaining in the field of farm credit, stressing more short term farm-credit loans; and since interest rates on farm credit are an important factor in farming operations they should not be increased on farm mortgages. B. The Farm Credit Administration should be placed directly in and responsible to the Department of Agriculture; and furthermore, the Farmers Home Administration should have more funds available to carry on their loan and supervisory program so that returning war veterans and young farmers could be financed. 3. A. Regarding natural resources, a Missouri Valley Authority patterned after the Tennessee Valley Authority to promote the development of mineral deposits, the generation of electric power, flood control, irrigation, soil conservation, industrial development, and recreation is needed. More emphasis should be placed on public-power programs so that cooperatives and municipalities have priority and preference in buying electric power at wholesale from public power projects. B. The State and Federal Government should retain supervision of its grazing lands, timber land, and mineral lands and dams should be constructed, where feasible, on rivers to generate electric power. That the soil-conservation program and flodd-control program be closely related and sponsored by the Federal Government and that soil-conservation payments by the Federal Government be continued, but with better supervision and coordination. 4. A. In the administration of Government programs the community and county PMA committeemen should continue to be elected by the farmers and the State PMA committeemen be elected by the farmer-elected delegates. B. The county PMA committee should not have less responsibility than it now has and soil-conservation districts should be self-governing cooperative associations of cooperating farmers and ranchers. 5. A. Pertaining to rural electric cooperatives, Federal laws should be enacted so that cooperatives would have the right to borrow funds to operate steam generating plants, and to have the authority to build and use transmission lines, or where practical, to have direct access to Government-owned transmission lines all the way to the generating plants where the power is produced. B. Since rural electric cooperatives are serving rural areas better than private utilities companies are, the raising of the interest rates on future REA loans to 4 percent would be detrimental to the users. 6. A. Regarding rural telephone service, there are not now sufficient funds available for a rural telephone cooperative in our area, but favorable legislation that would limit REA telephone loans to cooperatives without raising the present interest of 2 percent would be beneficial. The REA in our county is able to furnish all the administrative help that is needed in the development of a rural telephone cooperative. We ask Congress to appropriate more funds to develop a rural telephone cooperative. 7. A. Since cooperatives are essential in our farming operations and are constantly being attacked by outside interests, specific Federal laws to protect the present tax position of cooperatives is needed. 8. A. Inasmuch as there is a tendency toward good land being bought up by large operators, making it impossible for young farmers, particularly returning war veterans, to get enough land to start farming, we want farm legislation that would limit the amount paid to any one farmer in the agricultural conservation program. B. In the price-support program we would limit the amount of farm production of any one operator who would be entitled to full parity-price supports and a minimum below which a family-type farmer's wheat or other crop acreage could not be cut, with progressively larger cuts in the acreage of larger operators. 9. The Federal Crop Insurance program should be strengthened and revised to meet the farmers needs. Respectfully, CHARLES BALL, Chairman. ALEXANDER, N. DAK. HOPE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE, Washington, D. C.: 1. We believe that storage of nonperishable articles as grain should be stored on the farm where it is raised, in graneries furnished by the Government with the privilege of the owner to buy same on small payments, for, in case of war or floods, we would always have an ample supply. Large storage places could be wiped out too easily. 2. As to perishable products as meat, butter, etc., we believe a subsidy payment by the Government would be fair to all, as if beef was worth 32 cents per pound and the producer got 24 cents, the Government would pay the producer the extra 8 cents. Although we all pay tax and would suffer some to this extent, the consumer would gain for he would be buying the product so much cheaper and the lower-paid wage earner would benefit most and it would do him the most good, for he then could buy the food he needs for his family. We believe the Government should investigate why there is so much difference between the price of meat between the producer and the consumer, because we believe the price is too wide. AL STUCKE, STATEMENT OF RALPH DEWING, COLUMBUS, BURKE COUNTY, N. DAK. I believe high price supports of at least 90 percent of parity are necessary for the farmers of this Nation to maintain a reasonable income. High rigid supports must be continued on basic crops and extended to include other crops and produce. In northwest North Dakota, where I live, the only crops that can be raised, on acres taken out of wheat production, are flax, rye, oats, and barley. I understand the Secretary of Agriculture has announced that support prices on these crops will be lowered for 1954. This will mean ruin for farmers in our area of North Dakota. These crops should also be supported by at least 90 percent of parity. Our only other alternative to these crops is to increase our herds of beef and dairy cattle. Beef and dairy products should be supported at high rigid supports also. Wheat is our main crop and we are willing to cut acreages to get high rigid supports, but we think we should have a fair price for the crops that are seeded on these acres taken out of wheat production. We cannot pay taxes on our land and let it lay idle. I do not believe surpluses of wheat are a handicap if these surpluses are stored on farms. I believe a large wheat surplus stored on our farms is a great asset to this Nation. I believe a better way to handle this problem of wheat surpluses is to limit the bushels of wheat that a farmer can market, or take a Production and Marketing Administration loan on in any 1 year rather than curtail the acreage that can be seeded. If a farmer raised a large crop in 1 year and could not market it all, he would naturally provide storage room for the amount he could not market. In another year he may have a near or complete crop failure, then he could market the crops he had in storage. If he raised several large crops in a row and was becoming burdened with a large surplus in storage, he would naturally reduce his acres but would be secure in knowing that he had a crop to market even though his crop was a failure. Under the present program of acreage allotments a farmer who has 2 or 3 near or complete crop failures has no way to make up for his losses. He is still restricted to the acres he can seed. I believe this system would stabilize the farmer's income and also be a form of crop insur ance for each farmer. I believe this program would work for all storable commodities. I do not believe a sliding-scale price-support program or a two-price system would be satisfactory to farmers or would cure the problem of surpluses. I believe they would bring lower market prices, ruin for the farmers, and a major depression for the whole Nation. I believe some system of high supports for all perishables is necessary. I believe the cattle industry needs a program of price supports immediately or many ranchers and farmers are going to face financial ruin soon. The farmers in my area do need an expanded program of farm credit. Many of the farmers in my locality need credit each year to seed and harvest their crops. This credit is not available through private lending agencies and must be met by the Government if these farmers are to continue. STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT E. A. SCHAUER, BURLEIGH COUNTY, N. DAK., FARMERS UNION We want the Government to stay in and give us a helping hand in determining prices. We do not want to go back to the so-called free market. We want mandatory minimum price supports through loans and purchase agreements. We want supports on all our farm products even if production contracts are necessary. We want a program of maximum production and consumption. We want the Federal Government to stay in business of farm storage. We need the Farm Home Administration in my community. We want public power programs. We want cooperatives to have priority in buying power at wholesale from public power projects. We want our cooperatives to have the right to borrow funds and operate steam-generating plants. We want our cooperatives to have the authority to build and use transmission lines or have direct access to Government-owned transmission lines all the way to the generating plants. We do not favor raising interest rates on future REA loans. We do not believe private power and telephone companies could serve our area as well as cooperatives. We want a minimum below which a family-type farmer's wheat or other crop could not be cut. We believe 1,000 bushels of wheat should be the minimum of acreage which normally produces 1,000 bushels of wheat. There is a tendency toward good land being grabbed by large operators making it impossible for young farmer or veterans to start farming. We believe that in view of the rust and other crop hazards, we want Federal cooperative insurance strengthened and extended. We need the Farm Home Administration in our community. More funds should be available. Many young farmers and veterans would be unable to start farming without the help of FHA. We want soil conservation by the Federal Government to continue. TESTIMONY Of Clarence Walter, oF BERLIN, N. DAK., BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, WATERTOWN, S. DAK., OCTOBER 13, 1953, ON BEHALF OF THE LA MOURE COUNTY FARMERS UNION CROP FLUCTUATIONS AND CROP SURPLUSES Our most pressing immediate problem is so-called crop surpluses and the resulting disastrous drop in prices we receive for our products and the consequent need for price supports. In asking for continued price supports at 99 or 100 percent of parity we must first consider how real and how permanent are these surpluses. In the grain-producing area there are approximately 4 months of harvest but 12 months of 3 times a day 7 days a week consumption. Therefore, vast quantities of grain are stored for months each year in granaries or warehouses. The question arises, "Whose granary?" Obviously, the farmers themselves have definitely insufficient storage space, either owned personally or by farmer cooperatives. Therefore, much of the grain goes into storage outside the farmer's hands. But the farmer requires immediate cash, with the result that he sells for whatever the market offers. The more abundant the crop, the greater the pressure; hence, the price the farmer receives is often too low for him to break even and support his family. But at the end of the year of steady consumption what had been widely heralded as a surplus turns out merely to have been comfortable abundance an abundance for the producing of which the farmer has been penalized because of lack of storage space and credit. The problem is to provide an even flow of food to the consumer without penalizing either him or the producer. We believe it to be within the province of Government to promote the general welfare by providing facilities for an even flow of goods from producer to consumer, reducing as much as possible price spreads due to speculation. We assert that every person doing work which actually expedites distribution is entitled to a fair return, but profits based on speculation are not to be condoned. We believe we have been on the right track these past years with Government loans at 90 percent of parity, though most of us wonder why we are to be considered as just 90-percent citizens. As I represent a section where market grain is still the dominant product, I shall not make specific representations regarding dairy and meat products and fruits, realizing, however, that they present a much more difficult problem. Overproduction is, of course, a difficulty we face in any program of price supports. However, we state most emphatically that we do not believe that a sliding scale or a two-price system is a proper solution. It must be clear that in the recent referendum we declared we were willing to accept acreage allotments. We believe that the Department should devote some of its best brains to determine future trends of market demands, and to fashion land-use plans which allow as nearly full use of our productive capacity as proper soil-conservation practices will permit, and to implement the changeover required from time to time; we believe the Congress should make provision for incentive payments for initiating the desired new practices. We believe it will be more productive of results and will generate a more cooperative spirit if Government will use the "candy bar" of incentive payments rather than the bludgeon of the sliding scale. In all of this planning we must remember that it is a two-way street. The primary purpose is to provide both an abundance of food and other farm products to the consumer at reasonable prices as well as get to the farmer a return for his product sufficient to enable him to purchase his proportionate share of the products of our abounding industry. Several years ago we had a series of good crops which brought good prices per bushel. Farmers' income was high, and they spent money lavishly improving their farms and homes. This made industry highly prosperous, too. Lately we have been presented with the spectacle of falling farm prices while retail prices of food and other goods were steadily rising. Doubtless the members of this committee have seen millions of dollars' worth of farm machinery on dealers' lots in all the towns and villages of this area. This machinery is not moving due to lack of income on the farms. Employees in farm-machinery plants are being laid off in great numbers. Is this another 1929? REA AND RTA We are alarmed by the threat of rising interest rates on loans to our electric power and telephone cooperatives, and the threat of restriction of ownership of power transmission lines to private companies. All groups of people concede the value of having American farms electrified, not merely as a matter of convenience to farmers, but as a means of increasing productivity. Again it is a two-way street-more production or cheaper production means more or cheaper food for the consumer. Raising the cost of production raises the cost to the consumer. We therefore urge that interest rates be kept as low as possible. In the matter of power transmission lines we recommend their construction either by the cooperatives themselves or by the Government with a view of eventual sale to the cooperatives. One must always remember that the rural electrification setup is not Government ownership, is not communism. Public money is being lent to the cooperatives on a long-term basis, with provision in the contract for repayment, and we invite the members of this committee and of the entire Congress to compare the rate of repayment as it is actually functioning to the repayment rate on public moneys lent to some nonfarm industries. 38490-53-pt. 5-17 FLOOD PREVENTION AND POWER DEVELOPMENT We believe that river development should proceed in the hands of the Federal Government, primarily to assure full usage of all resources, by and for the mass of the people. Watersheds in this country were originally created on the grand scale, and to assure full development exhaustive planning on the grand scale is required. Even the greatest combination of private wealth cannot be expected to have the vision to plan the complete development of a watershed in the interest of the masses. CROP INSURANCE Crop insurance has proved itself, and we call for its continuance. Valuable experience has been gained, and improvemens can always be made on the basis of what has been learned. PMA COMMITTEES We definitely will not tolerate any lessening of farmer control over the production and marketing setup. Since the present farm program was inaugurated we have elected local committeemen, and we insist that we continue to elect local and county committees, and that we have the responsibility of selecting the State committee, either through a convention of delegates or through some other equally democratic method. We shall resist any attempt to have some commissar appointed from on high, whether according to the order of Hitler or according to the order of Lenin. FAMILY TYPE FARMING We are firmly committed to the historic American tradition of the family type farm. We believe that in the long run it is quite probably the most efficient in the matter of production, and we are certain it is the most desirable from the sociological point of view. We realize that mechanization of farming brings problems-farms must be larger. At this point we most emphatically place the most stress on the human factor, rather than on mere production. To pass title to the American farm to great corporations, with the work performed by rootless, landless wage slaves would be disastrous to the moral fiber of our rural population. For confirmation one need only look to the other side of the world, where the masses are landless. In Russia the system brought communism. In much of Asia communism may take over at any time, as the people realize they have nothing to lose, having lost everything already. Again, in the interest of the general welfare, the way must always be kept open so that each American farm family may dwell under its own vine and fig tree and none shall make them afraid. FARM CREDIT This leads us to the demand that the Federal Government do not retreat from the field of farm credit. Federally sponsored credit organizations have done much to help develop our highly successful cooperatives and have been of great assistance to individual farmers in land purchase and in the way of production loans. Especially we demand that the Farm Home Administration be continued for the purpose of assisting reputable families with insufficient resources to become established on farms. WHO CONSTITUTES THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY? Finally, we deplore the tendency in certain places in Government to consider millers, meat packers, brewers, and other processors of agricultural products, and merchandisers of food, as constituting the industry of agriculture. We insist that we who live on the farms, who ride the tractors and milk stools, we are the agricultural industry, and that we are primarily the ones to be consulted in formulating farm legislation and policies, and, therefore, we wish to heartily thank this committee of Congress for inviting us to this hearing. We realize that it has been an arduous task for the members of the committee to make this tour, but we are certain the results will be well worth the effort. We the people of Sioux Local No. 639, representing 53 farm families, do petition and urge the Agriculture Committee of the House of Representatives |