I would like to quote from Compton's Encyclopedia, the introduction they use in their chapter on agriculture: When the roosters start crowing before daybreak on the farms of the United States, they blow the factory whistles for the greatest industry in the world. The steel industry, the oil companies, the railroads, these do not compare in magnitude with the great farm factory. All the gold and silver mined since Columbus discovered America would not buy the farms of this country. One worker in seven in the United States is engaged in farming, and more money is invested in agriculture than in all our great manufacturing industries and transportation systems combined. To sum up, I would like to say that the family farmer is not asking for the impossible, but merely a chance to participate somewhat in our national prosperity. We have been taking it on the chin with bankruptcy facing us while the rest of the national economy has been enjoying prosperity never before known in the history of this country. For this country to remain strong defensively it cannot allow any part of its economy to be sick. With lower and lower agricultural prices it will inevitably drag the rest of the economy down with it. Let us hope that some solution can be found whereby it can be said that all the people of this great country of ours are enjoying prosperity to the same degree, and not prosperity on one hand, and frustration on the other. Mr. THOMPSON. Will you be seated just a moment, please, in case some of the members might like to ask you some questions? Mrs. KNUTSON. Thank you very much for your kind statement. We realize there are many problems that we cannot solve in the committee today, but it is absolutely necessary that we take this testimony, so that we can incorporate it into a farm program when Congress convenes. It is the idea of this committee that we get first-hand informa tion from individuals, and this is your voice and your chance to speak before the Congress of the United States. I should like to thank you very much for your statement, and we are looking forward to many more fine statements throughout the day. Mr. MCMILLAN. I wish to congratulate you on your very fine statement. I find myself in agreement, I believe, with everything you said or suggested. I was wondering if you could give us any suggestions as to how we might solve this problem. That is what we are really looking for today. Mr. GROVE. Yes; I understand that, but in thinking it over I figured I was in no position to make any suggestions, that there were men in higher positions and in a better situation to know these things than myself. Even though I live on the farm, and have first-hand information with regard to the problems as they exist, I would have no solution for them myself. Mr. MCMILLAN. We want to get the grassroots thinking of the farmers on the problems confronting the small farm; you are the man we want to hear from. Mr. GROVE. Thank you. Mr. Bass. I believe you told me that you had some 700 acres, you and your brother together? Mr. GROVE. Yes. Mr. Bass. And 500 was what you called agricultural land that you used now. How much labor do you employ annually on your farm? Mr. GROVE. For 1957 we employed labor to the amount of $25. Mr. GROVE. That is right. Mr. BASS. You and your brother and your family? Mr. GROVE. And as to the family, our families are too small to participate in the labor in agriculture, in the farming. Mr. BASS. What would you say your investment in machinery would be? Mr. GROVE. In machinery or land together? Mr. BASS. In equipment alone. Mr. GROVE. I would put it somewhere between forty and fifty thousand dollars. Mr. BASS. And two families live off of this farm? Mr. GROVE. That is right. Mr. BASS. What is land worth in your area? Mr. GROVE. Good agricultural land would be worth anywhere from $73 to $125 an acre. Mr. BASS. An average of $100 an acre, we will say? Mr. GROVE. I would say that is the average. Mr. BASS. The farms then would be valued at about $70,000? Mr. GROVE. More or less, and $50,000 worth of machinery. Mr. Bass. A $125,000 operation? Mr. GROVE. That is right. Mr. Bass. I wonder if you would mind telling me what you consider your gross net income as a family is on your farm? Mr. GROVE. The gross net income as reported on our income tax blanks for 1956 amounted to some $2,300 after the expenses were taken off. Mr. Bass. $2,300 for you individually, your family? Mr. GROVE. Yes. Mr. BASS. About the same for your brother? Mr. GROVE. Exactly the same. Mr. BASS. Basing that on a $125,000 investment, that is not a very good return, if you count your labor, is it? Mr. GROVE. I do not think it is. Mr. BASS. Thank you. Mr. KRUEGER. I have no questions. Mr. THOMPSON. Are there any other questions? Thank you very much. Mr. GROVE. Thank you. Mr. THOMPSON. I believe that Father Ramacher is here; is that correct? I understand that you wished to testify. We will be very glad to hear you now in case your duties may take you away before we adjourn. STATEMENT OF FATHER EDWARD RAMACHER, RURAL LIFE DIRECTOR OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. CLOUD, MINN. Father RAMACHER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to introduce myself, first of all. I am full time at rural life work in our diocese which is part of our diocese at St. Cloud. Bishop Bartholome was so concerned over the family sized farm, what is happening to it, that he has taken me out of the parish, where I should be working. and decided to place me full time at this type of work, to try to help these people to solve the problem of our family farm, as these people are trying to do. So with that in mind I would like to give this testimony today. In my capacity as full time director of rural life for the diocese of St. Cloud, I have already come to realize the great loss of our family farm units in the past few years. A survey made by Father Schmelzer a year ago of our diocese which comprises the 16 counties in central Minnesota brought out these startling results. Total number of farms in 1950 in these 16 counties was 36,264. Six years later in 1956 the total number of farms was only 30,659. Therefore, we lost 5,605 farm units in these 16 counties during the past 6 years, or 15.1 percent. Some counties like Sherbourne lost 20 percent, Mille Lacs 23 percent, our neighboring county, Wadena 24 percent and here in Otter Tail County in which this congressional hearing is being held we had a 16 percent loss. It would appear that some features of the soil-bank program did not help to curb this loss of the family-size farm. On the contrary the soil-bank program aided this trend toward loss of our family-size farms since under its provisions many of our farmers had their farms absorbed by landholders who lived in town and placed idle acres in the soil bank. This took families from the land and even found the remaining large landholders living off the land but in towns, where they could not maintain the proper regard for farming so necessary for the fully successful operation of the family farm. I could give you a number of examples of bankers, implement dealers, store owners, and others who have purchased small farms and are now boasting of getting so many dollars a week by putting these acres in the soil bank. The National Catholic Rural Life Conference went on recard when the soil-bank program came before Congress as being opposed to it. They argued that since two-thirds of the world goes to bed hungry every night it was wrong to put good productive land in the soil bank and let it lay idle. America has been blessed as the most productive country in the world and how then can we justify ourselves in letting good land lie idle when two-thirds of the world goes hungry. I know they give arguments for soil bank to reduce our surplus, but may I ask you, do we really have a surplus in this country or is our problem not one of surplus but a problem of the proper distribution of our products? I am convinced that we do not have a surplus when two-thirds go to bed hungry. We have a problem in the proper distribution of our product. Does it not seem peculiar to all of us who are given such splendideducational opportunities in this country to be able to invent intercontinental ballistic missiles, and so forth, and yet with all our knowledge we cannot devise a simple plan of using our extra products to feed the starving people of the world. Surely none of us can believe that our family-size farms are creating our so-called surplus in this country. On the other hand we do have to admit that our big assembly line and highly mechanized farms are creating the surplus if there is any. Many of these large landholders do not even live on the land. We hold that for effective farming the farmer must live on the land where he comes to love the land and tenderly cares for the soil. In the past 25 years too much legislation has been passed to help the large landholder and not enough has been passed to benefit the small family-size farm which is the backbone of the Nation. Just 3 days ago Pope Pius the XII speaking in Rome to 300 delegates from 70 countries at their general conference of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization told of his deep concern over the fate of the world's farmers whose conditions are getting progressively more serious. To quote his words: While the prices of manufactured goods continue to rise, those of agricultural products have been decreasing since 1952. So the farmer's purchasing power is gradually decreasing and his position grows more precarious. Do not feel that the Catholic Rural Life Conference stands against rural improvement or use of technical aids that allows our family farms to have more acres than they do presently. Rural technical improvement has always been championed by the organization, in legislation, in science, and in general education. However, the National Catholic Rural Conference holds that the economic social and cultural forces now operating to change the face of American agriculture must not be allowed to develop blindly and uncontrolled. The good results that they can bring must be promoted and strengthened; the undesirable results must be prevented. Science and technology, particularly must be the servant of man, not his master. Man must contribute actively to shaping his own environment and destiny, not merely submit to it. So we do not want anything of the Government, telling the farmers what they can do and what they cannot do. That is not the intention of this National Rural Catholic Life Conference to have anything to that effect. Both private and governmental agencies can and should work together in these tasks of research, education, and merchandising, consciously and effectively aiming their efforts to strengthening the family farm. Governmental agencies can be particularly helpful in providing at least part of the credit and technical aid needed by the struggling farmer. The Farmers Home Administration has a proved history of successful operations of this kind and should be expanded. Recent official interest in the appropriations for this agency have been less than desirable. We urge, however, that the choice of such a person be free of political considerations and that the individual selected be one of both proved understanding of the problems of the family farm and a deep conviction of its values. This last statement is taken from the policy statement of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference issued during its annual convention in Sioux Falls, S. Dak., in October of 1956. Furthermore here in Minnesota we would sincerely ask the Federal and State governments to give serious consideration to giving financial aid to young men who want to start family-size farms: to give more financial aid for our soil conservation districts to enable us to have more technicians, soil scientists, and engineers. Furthermore we need legislation to encourage decentralized industry and development of our rural areas to help maintain a fuller and better local economy. Finally we ask the Government for varied research projects in order to supply a better market for our products. We need more competent men to study the distribution of our products in foreign aid. (The survey is as follows:) Catholic rural life survey COUNTIES OF DIOCESE Rural County Catholic Urban Rural resi- Part Farmer Rural Rural total total 1 The above figures were given to Father Schmelzer by the reverend pastors of the diocese. The totals compiled by the chancery from annual reports of the pastors is as follows: F., 20,884; M., 1,994; W., 3,688; S., 6,120. NOTE. The 1950 figures are United States census; the 1956 figures are Minnesota State census as given by the Stearns County agent May 17, 1957. United States census figures for 1956 were not available. |