2. The family farm and family labor on that farm is a tremendous bulwark in time of war. 3. Destroy it in favor of commercial farm, then we have weakened a line of defense and individualism. 4. The plight of the family farmer is getting worse. 5. The family farmer can't compete with the man who owns a large farm, the elevator, the implement shop, and garage all at once who buys all wholesale. 6. The soil bank is actually hurting the family farmer, but ideal for the suitcase farmer. 7. In my visits I notice more and more farm families becoming separated, because the husband must leave to find work elsewhere to make ends meet. These same farms made a good living before. 8. Farmers are living off of past inventories, no home improvements being made. MY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Make direct farm payments to people who should have it. Indirect payments help too many who don't need it. 2. Wool program; everybody likes it here. 3. Direct payments only to family farms. 4. Receiver must live on that farm. 5. Payments made on produce off of only one farm. 6. Receiver must have made three-fourths of his income off of that farm. 7. A farm receiving payment must be an economical unit. 8. No payments to commercial farms. 9. No payments over $3,000. 10. Graduate payments from 100-percent parity to zero, depending upon produce produced. 11. Corn: 100-percent parity, first 500 bushels. 90 percent, second 500 bushels. 80 percent, third 500 bushels. 60 percent, fourth 500 bushels. Zero on rest of corn. 12. Figure payments like wool program after being sold on free market. 13. No Government buying and storing, with some exceptions. 14. Keep school-lunch program. 15. Soil bank is no solution to our farm family's problem. Gentlemen, I hope this will give a few ideas and opinions of many of our people here. These are my personal opinions, but shared by many of my personal farm friends. Respectfully yours, LAMBERT SCHILLING, Vocational Agriculture Instructor, Frazee Public Schools. ROLLAG-PARK-GRAN LUTHERAN CHURCHES, Mr. H. E. SWENSON, Family Farm Subcommittee, Fergus Falls, Minn. DEAR MR. SWENSON: I had planned to be at the subcommittee hearing in person but the unforeseen, a funeral, has intervened. But I will write down these random thoughts for what they are worth. The basis of any economy is its daily bread need, its material want, and therefore its agriculture. Agricultural man in his relation to plant and animal learns a toughness that fights on the side of life, a hope based on patient endurance in this struggle, and a sense of freedom and self-reliance based on these forms of property. His reverence for life includes not only the grains he handles or the stock he shepherds but also the members of his family and the individuals of the community in which he lives. Human souls are worth more than the gain of all worlds and the farmer is conscious of this in his relationship with others. He knows himself and his neighbor as something more than an efficient machine, or cog in its wheel, or phase of automation. Price controls, parity fixing, commodity credit, conservation, acreage control, etc., all hang together as a part of our economic stabilization. Perhaps parity coupled with the Canadian system of bushel control and the storage of surplus on the farm would be a step in the right direction but in such a way that familysized farms would receive full benefit and the factory to lesser degree and proportion. But you people will know more about these things than I. The inequalities of low income and high prices take the heart out of a community, as well as literally driving people from the land. The complex of “sheep before shearers dumb,” or, “what's the use?" is too much in evidence among us. Farm people have been robbed of that lightheartedness and cheerfulness that goes with ability to give. They have become their own first need in the multijob search for the means to sustain farm and family. Surely, seeking God's kingdom first and his righteousness must have application here; God's will can be found for those who work the soil. He who teaches us to pray, "Our Father * ** give us this day our daily bread * * *," teaches this petition before schooling us to seek forgiveness. The time is at hand for men of good will to cooperate in the solution of the Nation's No. 1 domestic problem, equity for the farmer. Thank you for your kind consideration. God bless you in this work for His people. Sincerely, MAYNARD E. STOKKA, Rollag, Minn. FAMILY FARM COMMITTEE. PARKERS PRAIRIE, MINN., November 15, 1957. DEAR COMMITTEE: In the past years we have had many so-called farm programs, under both parties, which in my opinion would be better defined as “landowners" programs. I don't believe the Government should have the right to support prices or pay subsidies with our money unless it helps a group of people that have had an injustice imposed upon them. At present, an injustice is being imposed on the true "family farm". So why not have a "family farm" program for family farmers only? I feel a family farmer is a man who is farming to make a decent living for himself and his family and, if the people of the United States want the "family farm" to continue, I believe we should have a support price on all commodities at 100 percent of parity but it should be limited so the farmer can receive an honest wage for the work he does to support himself and his family, and no more. This program should and could be handled by the direct-payment plan. For this area, I would suggest a support on a gross income of from $7,000 to $10.000. Any income over that would receive no support. If, for example, a monthly milk check comes to $200 and the parity price for that amount of milk would be $225, then the direct subsidy payment would be $25. The subsidy would be paid until the set gross income was reached. ELMER LARSON, A Family Farmer for 35 Years. P. S.-Let's get doctors, lawyers, bankers, and presidents out of our farm programs. PARKERS PRAIRIE, MINN., November 15, 1957. TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE FAMILY FARM: A farmer is not a producer. God is the producer. But the farmer works with the means of production. And the abundance which God produces is to be a blessing to everyone. A year of good harvests should mean a good year for every consumer in the country. But the man who works on the land should receive a living comparable to the living received by other workers. We may use a few more tools than the carpenter, for example, and we may have to keep and maintain a few more machines, but we still have to labor just as any wage earner. The difference comes in our pay: we never know what we will receive for our month's work. It is entirely tied up with the price of commodities and this is something over which we farmers have no certain knowledge and absolutely no control. (Last year I bought a brush for cleaning milker pails at 65 cents. Last week I paid 95 cents for the same type of brush. Our milk price hadn't made a similar rise.) The problem is to divorce the pay, or wages, of the farmer from the price which the farmer receives. Farms are geared and equipped and managed for full production-farmers do not like to see a policy of scarcity in order to "up" the price as scarcity hurts to many of their friends in other work. That the so-called family farm (a farm where the family lives and works and from which they derive their living) is changing and becoming larger, is a natural process helped by labor-saving machinery, electricity, etc. In our area, less than 3 miles from our farm in any direction, there are buildings standing vacant on 12 farms and they have been vacant for 3 years or less while neighbors run the land. Twelve families less in a community shows up in schools, churches, and stores. "The Good Earth" as a good place to live is losing out to the industrial centers. Around here many have gone to the taconite (iron ore) work in northern Minnesota. It is also true that this very same heavy investment in machinery and equipment makes it very difficult for a young couple with little means to begin farming. Why is it that so many farm policies concern a commodity or a piece of land and do not consider the farmer? Many men own land who are not "family farmers". The farm is merely an investment. Many professional men are acquiring farms via the "soil bank” way but they are not "family farmers" and never intend to be. Just a chance for anyone who already has the money to cash in on the farm program which is supposed to be for farmers. How about limiting the payments to actual "family farmers"? MRS. ELMER LARSON. STATEMENT BY J. L. MORTON, PRESIDENT, MINNESOTA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, FERGUS FALLS SCHOOL AUDITORIUM, FERGUS FALLS, MINN. In behalf of the members of the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation I wish to thank this group and especially Congresswoman Mrs. Coya Knutson for the chance to express the views of the membership of the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation to the Family Farm Subcommittee on Agriculture. Farm Bureau members have a conviction that the unparalleled progress of our Nation is due to the freedom, the initiative, and the opportunity of individuals. These concepts have allowed the development of an economic system which has provided untold goods and services. We have the greatest opportunities in education, in research, and in advancement of all the world. It is our constant challenge to work vigorously to maintain them and to build a better America. The major objective of Farm Bureau policy is to create conditions which will make it possible for farmers to earn and get a high per family real income in a manner which will preserve freedom and gradually eliminate Government regulation of individual farming operations. The problem of maintaining prosperity in agriculture is exceedingly broad and complex. It involves many different lines of action, not only in agriculture, but also in other fields. The following broad lines of action are essential to the economy of our Nation's farmers: (1) High employment, rising productivity, and a good distribution of income, after taxes, must be maintained throughout the economy in the interest of general prosperity which is necessary for farm prosperity. (2) Monetary and fiscal policies which will contribute to the maintenance of a relatively stable general price level must be used effectively. (3) Policies which encourage foreign trade and foreign investment must be encouraged. (4) We must encourage the creation and use of private capital both here and abroad. National security and trade among nations will be advanced by expansion of industry in friendly foreign countries. (5) The competitive principle must be preserved as a basic part of our economic system. Competition is the basic element in the spirit, the drive, the dynamic growth, the efficiency, and adaptability of the American economy. Restraint of trade or the exercise of monopolistic power by any groupGovernment, industry, labor, or agriculture must be prevented. Agricultural programs must include much more than emphasis on price supports or production payments. The most satisfactory approach to the farm problem is the expansion of home and foreign markets by policies designed to hold international trade at a high level and continued efforts to improve diets of our people. Efficiency of production should be a major goal. Research and educational activities must be enlarged with emphasis on projects to reduce production costs, increase efficiency in processing, marketing, and encourage new uses of agricultural raw materials. Preservation and wise use of our land and water resources; the availability of adequate farm credit at reasonable interest rates; the increased use of farm cooperatives to deal with marketing and supply problems; improvement of basic Federal and State services such as crop and market reports, weather forecasting, certain types of quality grading, inspection and regulatory work are all important parts of a farm program. In view of our overexpanded agricultural plant, there should be no further expansion of Federal reclamation projects that will place more land in production. Federally owned land should be withheld from production wherever possible. We must emphasize the need of soil conservation and stockpiling fertility in the soil for use in emergencies as contrasted to a policy of accumulating large stocks of surplus Government-owned farm commodities. A soil bank could be made effective to accomplish this goal. The abuse of this program in 1956 by farmers and the administration in using it as a free crop insurance and disaster relief program, has caused much criticism. If we are to keep this program, it needs some improvements. (1) Withholding land from production on an annual basis is not likely to reduce total farm production very much. Emphasis should be given to the withholding of land from production for a period of years. (2) We must keep the program on a voluntary basis, but we must include incentives enough to achieve a high percentage of participation. (3) More use should be made of CCC stocks for payment in kind. This should be stressed with better exchange value. (4) No acreage placed in the soil bank should be harvested or grazed under any circumstances. (5) Farmers placing land in the soil bank should be required to cut crop acres by the amount of land receiving payments in the soil bank. (6) All soil-bank payments should be "earned" and proof of reduction of crops should be a requirement before payment is made. In providing for referendums for alternative price-support programs for basic commodities, more realistic choices should be given. Under the present law, the marketing quota referendum on wheat gives producers a choice between (1) prices supports at 75 to 90 percent of parity with acreage allotments and marketing quotas, and (2) support at 50 percent of parity with the same acreage allotments. This had the effect of encouraging a "Yes" vote on marketing quotas. In the corn referendum last December, the base acre-soil-bank program was favored by more than 60 percent of the farmers voting. In spite of this large majority, this farm program lost because it required a two-thirds majority. This kind of legislation should be corrected. We must be on guard to protect the farmers ownership and control of the rural electrification and rural telephone systems. With approximately 95 percent of farmers of Minnesota and the United States now being served by electricity, we must be alert to see that farmers will have adequate power at all times at reasonable rates. One of the increasing costs for farmers is taxes-local, county, State, and Federal. Over 30 percent of the average farmer's income is spent for taxes. Farmland and other rural property is assessed at a higher valuation when compared with actual sales value than residential, commercial, or lakeshore property. Our antiquated tax system should be overhauled. Farmers are willing to pay their just share of support to schools, local and county expenses and support our State and Federal Government-but all tax studies prove that farmers carry more than their share. The welfare of farm people is dependent upon a high level of employment with high production per man. Workers have a right to organize and to bargain collectively, but such rights must be exercised with consideration for the public interest, the welfare of others, and the preservation of basic individual rights and freedoms. No person should be deprived of his right to work because of membership or lack of membership in any organization. The economic strength of labor unions has created a situation in which labor can usually get concessions it asks for. Management tends to give in to labor demands because it can pass the extra costs on to the consumer. The result is that benefits of improved methods and increased efficiency are not passed on to the consumer-thus it contributes to the wage-price inflationary spiral that is harmful to all segments of society, including both farmers and workers. Unions should be under antitrust laws similar to other groups. Union endeavors to dictate prices, control production, prevent or hinder the adoption of technological improvement, or restrict sales through uneconomic labor practices, secondary boycotts, or other means, should be prohibited. Great progress has been made in improving our public schools. We are aware of the need to continually improve our system of public education, and believe that this need can be most effectively and adequately met through the utilization of State and local funds. We maintain that control, administration, and financing of our public school system must remain identified with the smallest unit of government capable of satisfactory performance. Rural people are especially concerned about proposals for Federal participation in public-school financing. We oppose expanded Federal aid to education. In reviewing the testimony we are presenting before this committee on agriculture, we find that many problems related to agriculture have far reaching effects. All segments of our economy are so intermingled that problems of agriculture affect industry or labor, and their problems affect farmers. We need better understanding between all groups and we must all realize that we are dependent on each other. We urge that all groups work together in harmony to build a better America with freedom and opportunity for all. The opportunity of appearing before this committee is appreciated. We, in Farm Burean, wish to thank you for the support you have given our suggestions in the past, and we hope to work with you in the future. STATEMENT OF MRS. HARRIS IVERSON, FERGUS FALLS, MINN. CAUGHT IN THE SQUEEZE As has been said repeatedly, the farmer is caught in a cost-price squeeze. With costs continually being lowered, even below the cost of production, the small farmer is getting squeezed out. In preparing this statement, I decided to show by a simple comparison of figures the plight of the family farm. To do this I have used our income-tax forms. These have been prepared on the cash basis. We, my husband and I, have also farmed the same acreage. So all the added expense has come from the same number of acres. In checking these records, I find 1953 seems to be one of the best years, when we were showing a profit on our operation. As you all know there was an average 90 percent or better support price at that time. Our gross profit for that year (1953) was $9,296. The next year (1954) our gross profit was $8,569. In just 1 year it went down $727. Now to young farmers that represents quite a loss. The next year (1955) our gross profits really took a dive, down to $7,202. That is a loss of $1,365 in 1 year. The next year (1956) the figure reads $7,796 which is up $594, but due to the great loss in 1955 it brings the average loss to $700 a year for a 3-year period. Now lets look at the expense angle. I decided to take gasoline and machinery repairs. They seem to be the biggest items although other expenses have gone up accordingly. Our gas expense for the year 1953 was $845. The next year (1954) it was $924, up $90 in 1 year. In 1955 our bill was $1,066, this time up $142 from 1954 and $232 more than 1953. In 1956 it remained the same as 1955. When our income is lowered $700 and our gas expense goes up $100 to $200 there is a squeeze. The next item is repairs, as machinery gets older it needs more repairs. My husband tries to keep our equipment in good repair. He has to, because losing $700 a year, you can't buy new machinery on a small operation. In 1953 our repairs cost $344. In 1954 it remained about the same, but in 1955 when our income took the tremendous dip of $1,365, our repairs zoomed to $687. It went up $360 in just |