4. The proposed plan could greatly complicate our international relations. It is contemplated that all wheat not consumed domestically, either as food or feed, could be disposed of in the world market "at a price." If the sales are to be made in disregard of the International Wheat Agreement, the United States would be open to charges of "dumping" on the world market and undermining the efforts of other countries in the agreement to stabilize the world wheat situation. It would be a quick and sure way to alienate our allies. 5. The plan contemplates that the food processor would pay the subsidy to the farmer through a certificate-redemption method for the wheat that is consumed domestically as human food. The processor inevitably will pass this added cost on to the consumer. Sales on the world market, with or without the wheat agreement, are sure to be at prices considerably below 100 percent of parity. Therefore, the program could justifiably be charged with causing the American consumer to pay much higher prices for American wheat than foreign consumers would pay for American wheat. The political hazards of this feature are obvious. 6. If export sales are made in accordance with the International Wheat Agreement, it is extremely doubtful whether enough could be sold to move into export channels all the unlimited production that is not consumed domestically. This would be a price-depressing factor and no doubt would lead to invoking the pricesupport and acreage-restriction provisions which the plan includes as "safety" measures. So we would be right back where we started-with the supports and controls which the proposal is primarily designed to eliminate. Because the certificate arrangement would be in addition to Government loans, purchases, and acreage controls, the program would be more costly and more difficult to administer than the present program. 7. Difficulties to be encountered during the so-called transitional period, during which the plan would be put into operation, would be much more formidable than the proposal's advocates are willing to concede. The supplies now in Government possession, plus those likely to come into Government hands during the next year, would be a severe price-depressing factor on the market, since under the plan these supplies would be definitely intended to move into the channels of trade and not be held as reserves. It is entirely possible that the price would be driven below the figure at which supports and acreage allotments would have to be invoked, and so the benefits claimed for the proposal would be nullified even before the plan could become fully operative. 8. For these reasons we believe the multiprice proposal would be harmful to the interests of producers in both the Corn Belt and the wheat region, and we respectfully urge the committee to reject the plan. A PLEA FOR IMMEDIATE RESEARCH ON METHODS OF MAINTAINING QUALITY OF GRAIN IN STORAGE Two recent Department of Agriculture research projects have touched on the problem of grain storage, but an important gap in the research program exists. One of the projects investigated the costs of long-term storage and the relationship between costs of storing on the farm, in country elevators, in terminal elevators, and in Government-owned bins. The other project, which is not quite completed, is concerned with losses resulting from deterioration of grain stored under those various methods. Both of the projects are concerned with historical experience. But lacking is exact knowledge of the best methods to maintain quality of grain in long-term storage exact knowledge of what the farmer or the grain trade should do to prevent deterioration in the future. This subject is of extremely vital importance to the Government as well as to farmers and the grain trade, in view of the large stocks of Government-owned stocks held and the possibility of maintaining future grain reserves in permanent storage in the national interest. At stake is an investment of millions of dollars, which can be lost if grain goes out of condition. The cost of the needed research would be only a comparatively few thousand dollars. About 2 years ago a research project of this kind was submitted to the Department of Agriculture through appropriate channels, but it was not approved. The Department has done much basic research on plant molds and insects which could be applied to this project if the information is properly coordinated. The project need not duplicate work the Department has already done, but much of this work needs to be applied to this particular problem. We suggest that emphasis should be placed on ways that present average facilities, both on the farm and in country and terminal elevators, can be used or adapted for best results in maintaining quality of stored grain. However, new or even revolutionary ideas in elevator, bin, or crib construction should not be neglected. Cost factors, of course, should be given major consideration. The search should be for the best practical methods which could be put into widespread use by farmers and the grain trade. Because of the tremendous amount of new permanent storage facilities to be built by the grain trade in the next year or so, everything possible should be done to shorten the time required to complete the research. While phases of it may require several years, progress reports should be issued from time to time so that proved ideas may be applied without delay. We respectfully urge the committee to use its influence in getting the Department of Agriculture to launch such a research project immediately and to give the results the widest publication at the earliest possible date. Mr. HOEVEN. The next witness is Donald R. Murphy, editor of Wallace's Farmer and Iowa Homestead. STATEMENT OF DONALD R. MURPHY, EDITOR OF WALLACE'S FARMER AND IOWA HOMESTEAD, DES MOINES, IOWA Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Congressman Hoeven has told me that he thought you and the other members of the committee would be interested in what the Wallace-Homestead poll has found out about the views of rank-and-file farmers in Iowa on some of the farm-policy questions with which your committee is concerned. May I make it clear that I am reporting today what our polls have found about farm opinion; I am not stating the editorial position of the paper. Wallace's Farmer and Iowa Homestead does have a position on most of these things and I should be glad to state it, but I feel that you are interested in the views of many Iowa farmers rather than in the views of one Iowa editor. The Wallace-Homestead poll has been checking farm opinion on various issues since 1938. Over those years we have acquired some skill in finding out just what farm attitudes are. As an example, I might refer to the election of 1952. In our survey taken around the middle of October, we found that 64 percent of farm voters intended at that time to vote for Eisenhower. The actual vote in November turned out to be 66 percent of the farm vote for Eisenhower. The accuracy of our poll has been checked in many other ways. For instance, we have compared intention-to-plant figures and pig-survey figures with those of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. I mention these points only to reassure you as to the degree of accuracy you may reasonably expect from surveys taken by the Wallace-Homestead poll. All these surveys are based on interviews taken on the farm with individual farmers. The election survey to which I referred covered 450 individuals and reflected quite accurately the views of 450,000 Iowa farm adults. One of the things that is concerning you in your investigation is how worried farm people are about the future. Do farm people feel that everything is going all right and that no improvement of the farm program is necessary? In July of this year the Wallace-Homestead poll asked a representative sample of Iowa farm people this question: "Do you think that in 6 months the prices of things that you sell are likely to be higher, lower, or about the same as now?" Sixty-three percent of those interviewed said they felt the prices of the products they sell would be lower and only 3 percent thought that prices would be higher. The rest of them thought their prices might stay at about the same point as now. Perhaps I should point out that both Republicans and Democrats shared in these apprehensions. Sixty-two percent of the people who voted for Eisenhower were worried about a drop in farm prices, and 66 percent of those who voted for Stevenson had the same concern. You might call it a thoroughly bipartisan worry. One of the urgent questions in the dairy regions of the Corn Belt deals with the dairy surplus and what to do with it. Last spring a subcommittee of Secretary Benson's large dairy committee brought out two recommendations which seemed to us of interest. These recommendations were not supported by the full committee, nor by Secretary Benson. Because they seemed to us to have merit, however, we gave Iowa farmers a chance to express their views on the subjects. The Wallace-Homestead poll asked this question: "A dairy committee is recommending the following method for getting rid of Government supplies of butter and cheese: 'Issue stamps worth 50 cents on purchase of a pound of butter, 25 cents on a pound of chesee. Give stamps to folks now on relief rolls, to hospitals and other institutions.' What do you think of the proposal?" We found that 66 percent of the farm people interviewed thought this was a good idea, 20 percent thought it was a bad idea, and 15 percent could not make up their minds. Here again there was bipartisan agreement. Sixty-five percent of the Republicans and sixty-nine percent of the Democrats voted for the proposal. I might say that this vote was no particular surprise to us. Senator Aiken's food stamp program has long been favored by many Iowa farm people. The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation has given support to the food stamp. Wallaces' Farmer and Iowa Homestead has, of course, for years recommended this method of taking care of some of our perishable surpluses. Another point proposed by the subcommittee of Secretary Benson's dairy committee resulted in our putting the following question to a sample of Iowa farm people. We asked: "The same dairy committee recommends the following plan for keeping returns to dairy farmer at 90 percent of parity: 'Stop buying and storing butter and cheese. Let the market set the price. But if the price on butter should go to 55 cents, let the creamery pay the support price of 67 cents to the farmer and collect the 12 cents difference from the Government.' What do you think?" On this, 53 percent were in favor, while 30 percent were against and 17 percent were undecided. This, too, was no particular surprise. Production payments, embodied in the Hope-Aiken bill of several years ago and suggested from time to time by various people in both parties, have always had a considerable following in Iowa. The Wallace-Homestead poll has tested farm sentiment on this point repeatedly, and finds that a substantial group of Iowa farmers feel that the production payment method is worth a trial. This last survey which I have just quoted gives, I think, the strongest support to production payments of any poll we have taken. You may be interested in the political breakdown on this question also. Republican voters were 51 percent for the proposal and Democratic voters 61 percent. Against the proposal were 31 percent of the Republicans and 28 percent of the Democrats. It is unnecessary for anybody to present evidence that Iowa farmers support corn loans. In case there are any doubts, I have some polls on that, too. But I doubt if anybody will ask to see them. There is more difference of opinion on whether farm people want supports for perishables. In Iowa, that means dairy products and hogs and eggs. Hogs, of course, are the principal product. Över a number of years, the Wallace-Homestead poll has put to Iowa farmers this question: "Should the Government plan to support hog prices so the average price to farmers would not drop below 80 percent of parity?" Usually, this percentage of parity was translated into the actual price called for by the parity price of the time. Our 1953 poll, for instance, asked, "Should the Government plan to support hog prices during 1953 so the average price to farmers would not drop below $17 at Chicago?" In March of 1953, Iowa farmers voted 66 percent for Government support of the hog price; 23 percent said, "Leave the hog market alone," and 11 percent were undecided. This view of Iowa farmers has been maintained over several years. We have asked similar questions in 1951, 1952, and 1953. The "yes" vote ranged from 65 percent to 71 percent. I want to emphasize that because you all know that Iowa farmers. are strong for the corn loan. I should add that in this case also there is bipartisan support for Federal support for hogs. In the March 1953 poll, 64 percent of the Republicans were for hog supports and 67 percent of the Democrats. The question always arises as to how the Government is going to support hog prices. The Wallace-Homestead poll asked farmers to choose between production payments and some method of buying and giving away pork. Thirty-seven percent of the farmers interviewed wanted to use production payments, while 48 percent wanted to buy and store pork. Then we tried to find out just what they wanted done with the pork after it had been bought and stored. The question went like this: "If you want the Government to buy and store pork to keep the price up, what should be done with it?" People answered like this: 1. Hold and sell when the market gets stronger. 2. Distribute through food stamp plan, school lunches, etc... 3. Ship abroad to needy nations_-- Note again the strong vote for food stamps. Percent 14 43 22 21 Farm opinion on corn acreage cuts may also be of interest. The Wallace-Homestead poll asked farmers to choose among several combinations of acreage cut and loan level. We asked them to select their favorite among these: 1. A 20-percent cut in acreage with a 90-percent loan. The farm operators on this question came out 28 percent for 20percent cuts accompanied by a 90-percent loan, and 29 percent for no cut with a 70-percent loan. If you group the returns, you will find that 60 percent of the farm operators were willing to take a 10-percent cut or more in order to get a loan of 80 percent or more. There were about twice as many of these folks as of the farmers who were willing to take a 70-percent loan with no cut at all. Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you. The next witness is Mr. O. C. Swanckhammer, president of the Midwest Livestock Feeders' Association, Tarkio, Mo. If he is not present, we will pass him for the moment. Next is Mr. Merle Travis, Iowa Association of Soil Conservation District Commissioners. STATEMENT OF MERLE TRAVIS, PRESIDENT OF THE IOWA ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS, BEDFORD, IOWA Mr. TRAVIS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Merle Travis. I am a farmer in the Taylor County Soil Conservation District, Bedford, Iowa, and president of the Iowa Association of Soil Conservation District Commissioners. I am here today to appear for the 300 soil conservation district commissioners in Iowa. These men are farmers elected by their neighbors to run our local soil conservation districts. Iowa's 100 soil conservation districts have over 41,000 cooperators, all farmers who have taken on this job of getting soil and water practices on their land. Our soil is being conserved today. Due to the limited amount of time which I have been allotted here today, I am going to spend it by presenting this commissioner association's feeling on the soil and water conservation program as it affects Iowa. 1. These soil commissioners have worked diligently without any pay whatsoever up to 14 years to administer the soil conservation district program and have set up the workloads in districts with local farmers for soil conservation technicians. 2. Today the technical assistance from the Federal Government through the agency of the Soil Conservation Service is being challenged by this new approach in the field of soil and water conservation. 3. Secretary Benson's announcement on Tuesday morning of this new plan, which would give farmers more services by the process of elimination, is fantastic. 4. Part of his announcement called for the abolishment of the seven regional Soil Conservation Service offices in the United States. 5. Our State association cannot possibly see how the soil conservation districts can give the farmers more service in view of this new reorganization proposal. 6. What is good for organizations in big business applies in the case of the regional offices of the Soil Conservation Service. 7. We do not sanction Secretary Benson's proposed elimination of these offices inasmuch as it will in effect be creating 48 individual soil conservation programs. |