Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I assure you that this particular locality was chosen because of the many family-sized farm operations that you have here. So far as I know there was no political significance to it.

I think, perhaps, it might be helpful to those of you who are here as witnesses and to those who are our guests, and those who expect to testify, if I tell you who the members are and from where they

come.

I am sure that it is not required that I introduce the gentlewoman from Minnesota on my right because she is one that insisted that we come here. She said we could not possibly get a grasp of the familyfarm situation anywhere in the Middle West as quickly and as well as we could here. You will hear more from Coya as we go along.

Also, on my right is a gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. John McMillan, from the small-farm country, and an oldtimer on the committee, and one of our very best people.

Beyond him is another who comes from just as far away, from the State of Florida, Mr. "Billy" Matthews.

On my left is Otto Krueger who is a neighbor from just across the line in North Dakota.

Next on my left, from Tennessee, is Mr. Ross Bass, and then Pat Jennings, the "Old Sheriff" from Virginia.

I think that takes in all of the members. I am Clark Thompson from the State of Texas, from a district which has more family farms in it than any district in the State.

It has been suggested that it may be well to tell you where Texas is; I wondered myself yesterday when I flew up. There were some clouds and rain, the weather was not good. That country of ours has a great many family farms in it. As I told you, they were in a good deal of trouble and the first meetings that we held were in that particular district. Our principal problem there is cotton, and the fact was that they could not get enough of the market assigned to our small family operations, for them to get their share of the business. The business was going to the great mechanized areas in the irrigated sections farther west. We came across that country by bus and traveled through, talking to the farmers, listening to their problems and with them seeking the answer. We were accompanied by Mrs. Knutson and others from the Middle West, and this visit to you is to return the courtesy that you, through your representative, showed to us.

I wish to introduce two other members of our group, one very essential, Mr. Francis LeMay, committee consultant, at the end of the table. He guides us, and if we do not do exactly right he corrects

the record.

I will introduce to you the one truly essential man in the group, the one sitting down playing this piano, taking every word that is spoken. Later, he writes it up-what we should have said, instead of, perhaps, what we did say, Mr. Martin Smith, the committee reporter.

Any of you who do come to Washington to testify will see Martin sitting there doing exactly what he is doing now.

A word about committee procedure. I should like to tell you just how we operate. This is a part of the Congress of the United States. Every citizen under the Constitution has the right to come to the

Government with problems seeking redress or merely to consult. It is impossible, of course, for a great many who are present to come all the way to Washington and there offer their problem. So for that reason we bring the Government to you. This meeting belongs to you. It is your testimony that we shall hear. It is not necessary that we find all of the answers here today and tomorrow as we proceed. It is highly important though that we exchange ideas and, perhaps, later if in our committee deliberations we shall be able to work out the answer. Maybe we will find it today-I do not know.

There will be some happy witnesses, I hope, who will tell us that they have no problems other than the normal problems of operating any business, whether it be on the farm or elsewhere. If we have some of those, then we should like to know how it is done so we may pass the word along to others.

I wish to tell you something of the rules of conducting committee hearings. The witnesses are to address themselves to the committee. The others who are present are guests, as they would be in the gallery of the House of Representatives. There is a rule of the House that during the deliberations there shall be no demonstrations of any kind. For that reason we ask that you refrain from applauding. There will be opportunity for that later if you so desire. The reason for that is very obvious. If you ever were in a committee hearing where applause was permitted, you would find that the members of the committee themselves would get hold of the mike and they would be addressing themselves to the audience rather than exchanging ideas with the witness. I find myself doing that sometimes when I can get someone to applaud what I say, but if you will please observe that particular rule of the House, it will help.

I think I should like to vary from the set schedule and ask Mr. H. Swenson, who is the chairman of the local arrangements committee if he will not take the witness chair for just a moment. I want to ask him a few questions on behalf of the committee.

Would you tell us this, please. You did arrange the list of witnesses, I believe?

STATEMENT OF H. E. SWENSON, CHAIRMAN, LOCAL

ARRANGEMENTS COMMITTEE

Mr. SWENSON. Partly so; yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. In choosing them, was there any particular pattern-what did you try to do, get farmers and business people?

Mr. SWENSON. We have tried to get a cross section of all kinds of people, farmers, businessmen, professional men. The method used was that we wrote to 252 township and village officers in Otter Tail, Wilkin, and the other counties and asked them to get in touch with their neighbors and friends.

Our publicity chairman, through the Minnesota Editorial Association, had notices in all weekly papers of the State.

We were in touch with various TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers in the States of Minnesota and North Dakota in order to get word out that this hearing would be held, and that people would be invited and asked to state their opinions.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did you ask for those who were in trouble or anything like that, or just to get a cross section of the situation?

Mr. SWENSON. This is not a grievance-committee hearing.
Mr. THOMPSON. That is true.

Mr. SWENSON. This is not a weeping organization. We didn't ask anyone to come in with their hard-luck stories. We wanted them to help solve the family farm problem, and it is strictly nonpolitical insofar as the local organization is concerned.

We have discussed the matter, and we have come to the conclusion that if our local county fair association was to invite the President of the United States we would be accused of playing politics. Naturally, when we have anyone representing the Government we might be accused of playing politics. But that is not the situation here. This is open and free for anyone according to our invitation.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Swenson. That is what I was trying to establish. There is no withholding of any kind of witnesses because of political opinion. It is embarrassing to anybody in politics to be accused of playing politics. Just refer to the word in the dictionary and you will find politics is the business of the science of government.

I wish to thank you very much. I desired that to be shown in the record.

Mr. SWENSON. May I state that the mayor is probably unable to give a carte blanche to anyone, but he has told me that if anyone receives a parking ticket—and that is a local as well as a national problemthat that person either turn that ticket in to some member of our local committee or, to get in a plug for the Otter Tail Power Co., if they will drop that ticket where we pay our light bills right across from the courthouse-if they will drop their parking ticket in the slot there will be nothing more said about it.

The smoking room is over here. We ask that no one smoke in the remainder or other rooms of the school, but use the wrestling room, as we call it, for smoking.

This evening, if I may say, there will be an informal smorgasbord, that is Swedish and Norwegian, at the Ranch House, about a half mile south of town. In order that the cook there will know how many to expect we wish that you would let some member of the local committee or the usher know, so that we can be prepared. It is a Dutch treat at a dollar and a half.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. Before you go, any questions, Mr. Krueger?

Mr. KRUEGER. No.

Mr. THOMPSON. Any committee questions? You have done a very fine job of arrangement.

Thank you very much.

That smoking regulation is a State law and we have nothing to do with it except to comply.

I wonder if the committee and our guests would indulge me for just a moment. I have quite a claim on the Middle West myself, although I now come from the great State of Texas. I was born on the Mississippi at La Crosse which is just over the river from Minnesota. My father was born in St. Paul, my mother in St. Charles, and my grandfather who bore the same name as I do, built the Southern Minnesota Railroad. I do not feel out of place at all when I come back to the Middle West. I feel quite as though I belonged and that we all understand each other.

We will get on with the business at hand. I think we should read into the record at this point a telegram from the Lieutenant Governor which says:

I am extremely sorry that because of illness, I will not be able to greet you personally, Coya

this is addressed to her

and welcome the other members of your committee to Minnesota. Do want to express my sincere best wishes that your hearings here will point up the problems of our family farms and aid you in finding a solution for them. Best personal regards.

KARL F. ROLVAAG.

I will ask Mrs. Knutson to read another communication. Mrs. KNUTSON. This is addressed to me from Senator Hubert Humphrey, of Minnesota :

Hon. COYA KNUTSON,

House of Representatives,

UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C., November 11, 1957.

Room 205, Post Office Building, Crookston, Minn.

DEAR COYA: Because I am unable to be with you for the Family Farm Subcommittee hearings in Fergus Falls, please extend greetings in behalf to your fellow committee members as well as the farm people gathered for this important occasion. I want to commend you and other members of the subcommittee for the deep interest you have shown in the plight of our farm families. I am sure Minnesota's farmers greatly appreciate the opportunity being provided them to speak for themselves at your hearings. While I am sure testimony you hear will make it amply clear just how serious the plight of our farm families has become, I do want to take this means of expressing my own concern, as part of your hearing record.

There may be room for different points of view as to what should be done about our agricultural problems, but there can be little difference of opinion over the fact that our agricultural economy is dangerously out of balance with the rest of the economy. Farm income has been steadily declining, during a period of rising production costs. In 1956, the average income of farm people, from nonfarm as well as farm sources, was a little more than two-fifths as much as the average income of the nonfarm population. That is far cry from the goal of equality of farm income with income in other segments of our economy, which was declared the intent and policy of our Congress many years ago. In establishing that goal-which still stands in existing law today-Congress recognized the fact that farm people and the resources they own make at least as much contribution on the average to the Nation's economic welfare as do nonfarm people.

The risk to invested capital in farming is greater, not less, than the economywide average. Modern family farming requires more skill and as great human strength and attention to details as does average nonfarm work. Modern family farming requires as high type of management ability as that required of the average manager of nonfarm business.

In terms of pure interest return on invested funds, a dollar should be a dollar throughout the economy. Unfortunately, however, the farmer pays a higher interest rate on borrowed capital and earns a lower return on the funds he invests in his own business than any other businessman in the economy. Farm income is far too low today, and it isn't only farmers who should be concerned about it. Inadequate farm income has not only retarded the economic and social development of rural areas; it has acted to prevent the Nation as a whole from the maximum attainment of its economic gains. We cannot expect to go on having farm income decline a billion dollars a year-and farm indebtedness go up by about the same amount-without serious consequences for the entire economy.

This disparity between farm income and nonfarm income is becoming greater each year, despite our declared goals of public policy towards bringing them closer together. Current trends and current farm policies are not moving in the direction of closing the gap.

It is imperative that we carefully review these existing policies, and make whatever changes are needed to restore farm income to a fair balance in our economy. Toward that objective, I am sure your House hearings will provide valuable supporting evidence.

Sincerely,

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY.

Mr. THOMPSON. The first witness I have listed is Mr. Lawrence W. Jansen of Hallock, Minn.

(Not present.)

Mr. THOMPSON. We will pass Mr. Jansen for the moment.

The next is Mr. Harry Ophus of Erskine, Minn. Is he here? (Not present.)

Mr. THOMPSON. How about Mr. Leslie Stout of Baudette?

Some

of these men have had trouble getting in-some may plan to get here

at a later time. The fact that they have not been here when their names were first called need not bother anyone at all.

Mr. Clifford Homsted of Hallock, Minn.?

(Not present.)

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Frank DeGroat, president of Becker County Farm Bureau?

(Not present.)

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Hubert Lorang?

(Not present.)

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Ole A. Moe. Will you come forward, Mr. Moe.

STATEMENT OF OLE A. MOE, SOLWAY, MINN.

Mr. MOE. Mr. Chairman, I should like to read my statement and, perhaps, there will be a few comments I should like to make on various points in the statement. Is that all right?

Mr. THOMPSON. That is all right.

Mr. MOE. Hon. Coya Knutson, members of the House Agriculture Committee at its hearings at Fergus Falls, Minn., on November 14 and 15, 1957, with the permission of the members of the subcommittee of the House of Representatives I wish to submit a statement relative to some of the problems confronting the family farms in this part of Minnesota, particularly Beltrami County.

First, I must state that the family farm as we knew it a few years ago is rapidly disappearing from the scene. A few weeks ago I attended a church meeting at which this very problem was discussed and it was forcefully brought out that this erosion of the family farmer was affecting the church organizations to such an extent that realinements must be made in order to keep some congregations alive. We are also aware that this same problem is now affecting the business and professional people in the towns and cities. I note that in the past few months some of the business establishments are advertising liquidation sales and going out of business.

We may safely assume that under present policies this trend will continue and that the family farm which has been the bulwark of rural America for hundreds of years is now in the process of being replaced by an alien system which is commonly referred to as agricultural feudalism.

This trend started back in 1947 or 1948 when all price controls were abandoned and our pricing system became a free-for-all markup